Rant 82 : Time for a new avant-garde

Come and find us then - we're trying our hardest on all fronts from avoiding travel to anti-commercialism!

Grayson Perry once said that coming out as a craftsperson in the fine art world was harder than coming out as a transvestite. Perhaps the new avant garde actually lies tucked away in remoter places where the hand-made, non techno world of crafting and true subversion, research and experimentation are quietly on the ascent?

I think the crafts, when they opt out of the commercialism that dominates much of the art world, at least protect their integrity. But in that, they don't offer much of a critique of the current state of the (art) world. They just abstain from it.

The case I think I want to make is for an art that is about art, in the sense that it might attack those parts of the art world that have 'sold out', on one hand, and might offer more autonomous, potentially emancipatory perspective on contemporary life on the other. 

Perry, to my mind, is just another celebrity whose success depends upon precisely the type of art world that I think we need to bring to a close. 'Individualism' is a tool of capitalism. 

Just to be clear - I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't be able to make a living. That would be silly - most of us have to earn money - it's a necessity. But when art is driven by commercial and governmental interests, it has ceased to maintain its critical function.  

 I do think Perry might have unwittingly sold out now with his large tapestries but still I think his pots and his show last year, Tomb of the Unknown Craftsman, at the British Museum, maintain a spirit of the right kind of eccentricity and individualism, rather than the kind that is driven simply by huge ego. When one artist becomes this successful in commercial terms it's inevitable that they lose much of their integrity don't you think? 

I believe that what is percieved and often dismissed as merely craft because of the materials it is created from can actually be used to make a critique of the art world more effectively and subversively than many realise. I believe Perry did this in his early days very effectively.

It would be brilliant to see more collaboration on a grand scale and more emphasis on knowledge and research and a passing on of skills and ideas rather than all emphasis being placed on the end product as it is currently.

But I find the corporate "trendiness" and slick uniformity in the form of endless clusters of video screens on floors and huge ciberchrome photos, still proliferating in many galleries to be very regressive and tired looking now. I agree that there needs to be a new avant garde that blows away the existing art world to a large extent but disagree that individualism poses a threat to this happening - if anything it's the opposite and individualism has been replaced by egotism and self interest?

In fact the more I think about this rant topic and the way you present it the more I feel the need to question your thinking? If you look at a room full of curators - bastions of the contemporary art world - they are almost all dressed in dark grey suits and black t-shirts - hardly individualistic? And almost every publicly owned gallery in every city in the UK is still exhibiting grey, bland artworks with noisy but indifferent sound tracks. There is the ubiquitous blacked out room with a video playing somewhere without a shadow of a doubt. And this is hardly ground breaking since these forms have been around for well over a decade. Even at its best it is hard to recall the names of these artists because there's nothing unique or individual about their approach and yet they are still the ones exhibited in many galleries because it's safe territory. If this is the anti-individual approach you want of the art world you already have it in all its glory - anonimity and corporate blandness abound but I'm afraid it's also profoundly capitalist too!  

"The case I think I want to make is for an art that is about art, in the sense that it might attack those parts of the art world that have 'sold out', on one hand, and might offer more autonomous, potentially emancipatory perspective on contemporary life on the other. "

The word "about" is problematic, because for a broad sample of the institution of art this is already its concern. However, the problem is that this concern is either directly re-enforcing the institutional homogeneity, or is strengthening it through minor deviations which only go as far as to present an aesthetic of creative radicalism and keep the whole project off the boiling point that would make it impossible to hide the total farce.

I also don't think the answer is to abstain, or to position oneself as “anti” because the field is already dominated by the royal narrative, not just in terms of resources but in terms of how we as an audience “look at art”. Perhaps in place of the institutionalising diametric “anti” we might have a new creative “non”. To create new operations, tied by none of the traditional givens, whether by support or reaction.
I think critique is important, but it must be authored and individually accountable. An artist should place their own neck on the line and voice their opinions rather than retain the safe Post-Modern (and derivatives) role of a conduit presenting distanced source material.

So these new operations might be without all of the unexamined systems of the present, and everything transparent rather than so many things functioning through withheld information, withheld agendas.

A situated, unbordered and continually emerging operation of beauty and use which might be called “art. That's what I'd like please.

"The word "about" is problematic, because for a broad sample of the institution of art this is already its concern. However, the problem is that this concern is either directly re-enforcing the institutional homogeneity, or is strengthening it through minor deviations which only go as far as to present an aesthetic of creative radicalism and keep the whole project off the boiling point that would make it impossible to hide the total farce."

You put this very succinctly Ralph and I fully agree - especially about the matter of accountability.

Thank you. I just read this and thought it relevant.

"What matters is the complexity of the method, and not really the clarity of the intent, which relates to our need to abandon the right/left straightjackets of political identity in favor of something like a direct politics."

Yes that's good. T&P

When I say 'about art', I'm thinking along lines described by Greenberg, such as in his essay 'Avant Garde and Kitsch'. Instead of an art that was part of the inauthentic culture that capitalism had brought urban dwellers, he championed an art that turned its back on that culture and focused on art itself. For him, this was a criticism of commodity and academic culture and an opportunity for art to jettison what was unimportant. 

But I guess we need to go further, in that turning our backs on art that sells out to economic and governmental imperatives (= bad art) does not stop that kind of activity from displacing art that has a critical, emancipatory function (= good art). 

Does that make sense?

Not really - not to me anyway. Chris I think as artists we have to follow our noses and stick to our guns i.e maintain integrity and be true to our own way of seeing the world. Once it's out in the big wide world (providing it gets that far of course) it has to speak for itself and be subject to criticism or admiration or both.  But we can't adopt Greenbergian or Bergerian ways of doing things consciously simply in order to be truly avant garde because at the end of the day art that does this isn't art, it's dogma.

I made reference to Greenberg to clarify what I meant by 'about art', not to suggest we had to wholly adopt his position. If we don't look at what people like Greenberg had to say on such matters, how will we know what terms such as 'avant garde' might refer to and the possibilities they might offer? He establishes a set of meanings for the term which I think are useful. How attending to and learning from them leads to dogma, I have no idea.

My broader point is that contemporary art should seek to distance itself from economic and ideological constraint imposed by 'the Academy', and I think we need to learn from whatever models we can find to help in this. 

Perhaps we need to nail down some of these rarefied terms but I can't actually imagine an example of art which turns its back on culture and the wider reality that isn't utterly worthless.

Firstly I don't think Greenberg is anywhere near broad enough, his definition of creative freedom is always restrained by a pre-defined artisan role.

Secondly Greenberg is always an Ideologist, attempting inflicting a Hegelian system over the infinite chaos of material art practice. He's more part of the problem than most.

I understand that the intent is only to look at Greenberg to help understand what “avant-garde” was, and therefore get some ground on what it is now. However, aside from my problems with Greenberg outlined above, I don't think that goes back anywhere near far enough. Asking questions, if only regarding the structure, of how previous generations “did it” in order that we might learn how to “do it now” only serves to reinforce the lineal tree structure of institutional narrative.

I'm not saying abandon history, but I am saying that looking at how someone allegedly solved the puzzle before is useless because A; then isn't now and B; they didn't solve the puzzle anyway.

“Avant-guard”, not just historic movements but the whole principle of the “creative revolution” is utterly canonised.

For a genuine difference to occur it must happen outside of the reach of this sucking void of Capitalist Art. It must also return to first principles. Not the question “how to make new art?” but the directive “do something of worth”.

With that final word left intentionally undefined.

Also, I do get your point Chris that contemporary art should seek to distance itself economic and ideological constraints, I just don't think the answer is found "in" i think it's "out".

Also I'm surprised I only misspelled avant-garde once.

I didn't mean that artists should turn their backs on becoming well informed. I have read all of Clement Greenberg's works in my day and many others besides, from Ruskin to Berger to Gombrich etc, and I still don't feel well informed - probably never will but hope to keep on trying. I just meant that following what is written about art (and Greenberg was pretty dogmatic) literally will lead to art that is rule bound, and rule bound art is not inspiring or truly avant-garde in my opinion.

And it's easy to distance yourself from economic and ideological constraints as an artist if none of your work is for sale!

Chris is this the kind of work you are looking for re new Avant Garde? http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/walker/johnmoores/jm2012/prizewinners/

I imagine all of these prize winning artists to be followers of the Greenberg way of thinking, and of course they are all working with paint - so I wondered if this was what you meant you would like to see happening? For what it's worth I think that most of these works are beautiful if we follow a very traditional formalist definition and don't set any store by originality = because they are all highly derivative - by which I mean that for each painting I think "oh yes that's like a Prunella Clough" or "how very Agnes Martin" or whatever.

Very interesting article.

Thanks, Chris.

Thanks Andrew.

Does anyone have any counter-arguments to what I've written? Can the emphasis on research in relation to art practice improve that state of contemporary art? Can a more instrumental approach to the making of art give art as a whole more of a clear purpose? That sort of thing...?

 It sadly seems to me that an un-sizeable mass, including so-called alternative art/artists groups, institutions...is subjected, influenced, imbibed with fear and indoctrinated with the desires and ruling thought process of the few who play a cheating game of chess using us as pawns, as we continuously let ourselves be used.

Politics and economics rule.  A fake non-existant unit of measurement rules, politics always have ruled or at least influenced decisions and actions among beings.  Our growth in numbers seems to equate that of the place politics take in our decline. 

Current awarded, elected, prized...art seems to expose a concern for those issues, sadly it often seems to expose an infected concern.  The maker misses its Self for the invented concerns of a mass.  As long as the P and the E are there, then the rest of the world bows to the maker, just as we bow everyday to the makers of those parasites.  It is a lost battle to fight for change; many have and regret, many did and ended their days in despair not having given themselves the time to evolve within and for their own truth.  Trying to convince all is a lost war, and in itself equates to the position of those that bring fear.  Trying to understand what it is that leads us to forget the simple, the raw, the essential brings answerless questions, doubts and more unknowns.  We live and die in the fear of not knowing rather than living and dying in the hunt for never knowing and always searching, always accepting our littleness in the face of the ?

Our aims have become false and drive us further and further away from the primitiveness that is the pure in us, the only differential, equaliser. 

In order to express a counter-argument to yours we would have to question whether art making has indeed lost its way and explain why its sense of purpose is actually quite clear still Chris. I find it impossible to generalise in this way. For example you obviously dislike the work and approach of artists such as Perry and probably Emin too, whereas this rant has reminded me that I really do admire some of their work very much. If this was the starting point of your argument then it would be possible to support or refute. 

You need to explain more specifically why you feel art has lost it's way - this is too nebulous a premise to work with otherwise? To me there's a deficit of originality and experimentation in the artworld at the moment. I'm sick of the emphasis still being slickness and am saddened by the lack of substance and over-reliance on pre-existing assumptions about beauty. But in order to demonstrate my point of view I would have to give examples to counteract yours - which I can't do because you haven't provided any?

In my opinion - and it may be useful for readers' to remind themselves that it is only an opinion - contemporary art, like contemporary anything, is affected and effected by context. The process of making art can often give birth to artworks that may be of a more critical insight than something conjured out of thin air, but, I would argue that conjuring works out of thin air is just as useful as analysing the guts out of an artwork simply because those who analyse work tend not to be able to enjoy work unless its academically or, even more annoyingly, bullshit friendly. The critic and the upstart tend to want to be taken seriously because they have nothing else to offer than a few lines pulled from the pages of books written many years ago.

It is far easier to criticise than to produce something for criticism. God bless their eggshell-like exterior.

I like what you are saying a lot Andrew but I'm not exactly sure how it relates to this rant - are you saying that those that can do and those that can't write about it? Sorry if I'm being obtuse!

 "Spend less money. Travel less (leave that to the businessmen - apparently, it’s bad for the environment). Make art that doesn’t pander to the demands of institutions and industry."

I think the conundrum we are all in is this ghastly political system....capitalism consumerism that we are all trapped to a greater or lesser degree within.

It has an analogy with history of course. All things are cyclical and it is obvious to me that we are in a very similar time and circumstances to the Great Depression prior to the Second World War. 

Yes, it looks very different because we are now at least eighty years further on in time with all the complexity of a global economy and interaction, huge advances in technology and communication but essentially we are the same humans.

As humans we have the same fears, aspirations, creativity and needs that we have always had. I recommend that you read The Social Animal by David Brooks.

 There is no doubt that there is an avante garde out there. With the tremendous advance in mind numbing social communication and propaganda that pervades almost everybody you can be sure that a few are seeing clearly the wood within the trees and are going straight for the jugular. Stand by for ART that will be uncompromisingly relevant and political and revolutionary because as history shows us there are creative minds at work and they are not going to show their work until it is the appropriate time and place and they definitely do not want to be part of the capitalist system which taints and sucks any individual into it's grey suited anonymosity only to be regurgitated as a consumerable by the fashion trends.

Clearly there is a lot to be revolutionary about......global warming, huge imbalances in materialistic wealth, an impoverished spirit and selfishness and the industrial war machine thinly disguised as defence. People are not stupid and although few are as enlightened as those at the top of Maszlow's Pyramid, there will definitely be a breaking point or a break through point to enlightenment when the avante garde innovate and conjure up a true advance in ART.

Where will this avante garde emerge? Now we have to search the world because looking for it only in the UK is like looking for a scarce commodity whilst confined to your back garden. There are many countries where a new avant garde might be.....it doesn't necessarily have to be in the UK,Europe, the USA, the Middle East, the Far East or China. There are many other countries to look at. For me the most interesting countries are the South American and Indian continents. And of course we rarely get to hear of those at present. Art is being created all over the world.

Music is the greatest language of the human spirit and sensitivity because it has avoided  political censorship for the most part (exceptions being Shoshtakovich and others). The Rite of Spring heralded a new vision and something similar but completely different! will emerge before the new revolutionary art of the 21st century!!! 

In conclusion I agree with Chris Short that the majority of art today is stuck in a political and bourgeois conumdrum. If we are loking for an innovative, revolutionary artist we must search for a rarity which is exceptional and we will not find that by trawling the same old galleries, institutions, media, social networks and shopping centres. Inevitably you will discover this rarity in places that you have not ventured and have not even thought of.  

Seems no one writes on Network any more except the usual suspects. There you have an example of what I mean. I was looking in the wrong place. Things move on and who knows what will be the next communication (on cloud no doubt) 

I'm a bit confused by some of the above posts but this one I totally agree with. If you are looking for something exterior to the well worn grooves of style, then this website is perhaps not the place to look because for the most part that is neither the format or content of what is here. The collapse of this discussion also suggests the same thing.

Interesting post, Stuart. I was thinking primarily about the UK, because I have first-hand experience of the 'Academy' here, and hadn't considered the kind of arena you outline. The issue I'm thinking of is sort of confined to our back garden, in that sense - but you cast the net far wider, both in terms of the problem, and of sources of possible solutions. 

Yes Chris, we are in the global village now. That doesn't mean everyone is on line or even uses the www. The best way to see is art is in real time in reality not on line. I visit as many galleries as I can in London. I cannot go further afield due to limited time and money. As we are all in one world interconnected economically and ecologically the problems we experience are also experienced to a greater or lesser extent in other parts of the world. Who is to say that a woman somewhere in Mongolia or a man in Bolivia isn't producing some innovative and revolutionary work.

Music is a very interesting analogy for me because it is a universal language like art that cuts across cultures. I enjoy jazz, vernacular and classical both old and new, traditional and avant garde. As my taste is very wide I liken it to my art interests which as wide. I am as interested in Aboriginal and african art as much as colombian and mexican art. Axis is only a directory for those who want to join and are accepted. There are many more artists in London than on the axis site. Recently I have seen two exhibitions by artists in London who are not on axis and have never heard of axis. They poiny to a new direction.  I am sure there are many others oblivios yo axis, the www and galleries in general.

 Naive response perhaps, but should someone not point to some 'Art' to illustrate the points you are making.

Maybe take a look at the web sites of government-controlled funding bodies and see the contexts in which fine art sits there?

 You are a glutton for punishment, are you? Stay well clear of government websites! Look for artist's websites!!! I discover wonderful art and it is not from the UK! Time to get thinking divurgently and look further afield. The world is my oyster.

I'm sure you're right, Stuart! But on this occasion, I was suggesting looking at those sites to find the kind of Academic art that I refer to in the original post, rather than anything we might aspire to...

In a way, yes. And don't worry, you're miles away from being obtuse! :)

The observers are not the participants, but they want to be a part of something and one of the easiest ways to be a part of something is to say lots about it. I've often wondered why I bother making art when it seems the only outcome from it appears to be the endless cycle of why it's been done. During my art school studies, I really didn't feel there was any point in making art at all. I asked my contextual studies lecturer if it were possible for an "avant-garde" to emerge today, and it seems not because the world is reduced to a click of a mouse button, it is easier for anyone to engage with anything at all whenever they like. We probably suffer from information overload. If one uses the right words, then any art can be regarded as good or bad and, to my mind, the only thing anyone wanted to know was how much money they could make from it. Money is soul-less. Art, in my opinion, should engage with the emotional aspects of ourselves and it seems very difficult for me to do that in the western world. In my opinion, the skill, or craft, in an artwork doesn't necessarily have to be the physical act in making an artwork / art object.

As an example, a painting makes one think; a science programme on the BBC once said that to find the first example of human thinking, you had to find the first example of human paintings. It doesn't really matter what the subject may be in the work. I could paint a dot on a canvas and title it 'Square'. The work doesn't have to be skillfully painted as the title is taking on the role of skill.

It seems to me, that, with this in mind if anything can be justified as being recognised as art, then, anything goes. Eventually something will emerge that will make me choke on my cornflakes, and I'll probably say "I wish, I'd bloody thought of that."

Eventually something will emerge that will make me choke on my cornflakes, and I'll probably say "I wish, I'd bloody thought of that."

 It may not be on the web and I scarcely use the web so I do not know. I am out and about looking at art in galleries and the latest photographs I viewed at Hamiltons (see my input on Network) really wished that I had the money and euipment and time to record what Murray Fredericks has done. I always wanted to photograph clouds as I am a cloud appreciater but with only a 35mm film camera I could not do them justice. A 10 x 8 camera is well out of my budget at present so I have been pursuing what I can do best with the little equipment I have. Vik Muniz clouds were always inspirational to me as his works are as an artist. Anyway I just wanted to say if I had been eating my porridege I would have coughed up on the images at Hamiltons. Go and see them or google him as soon as you can. Definitely the best show I have seen in London and I look at a lot. 

 My apologies. I am not proficient at IT. The above is a reply to your post, Andrew

Stuart you replied using a quote of Andrew's so that shows you are perfectly IT proficient in this context so don't put yourself down?

Andrew I don't know if I agree with you about the value of skill. If an artwork prioritises skill over ideas and is intended as a display of skill first and foremost then I will probably call it a work of craft. If an artwork inspires me conceptually but bores me with it's lack of skill then I might just put the concept in my back pocket for later use. If the artwork is both exquisitely made and conveys layers of meaning then the very thought of it might choke me on my gluten-free meusli but this doesn't happen very often at all! But then why should it?

Chris I think perhaps I'm just beginning to understand what you are saying. Am I right in thinking that you would like to see art that isn't necessarily any good in itself but pioneers a completely new direction for art practitioners to follow - a new movement/ movements if you like?

Are we maybe talking about academic art that follows a line of thought that is very consciously free from the trappings of the commercial art world - steering the way for less intellectualised artists to move towards? I think this approach might be quite similar to the way scientific thinking has evolved - so charisma and the individual are of less importance and the passing on of ideas for various practitioners and thinkers to add to is what leads to progress. In other words reduction of the individual ego and output and emphasis on the overall journey or am I barking up the wrong tree entirely? Personally I think it's the individual contribution to artistic endevor over the centuries that differentiates art from science but whether this is a good thing or bad elludes me so far.

And I'm going to stick my neck out here and say an artist's name because otherwise the whole premise of this rant is just too nebulous. Here is an artist who seems to me to  work with ideas first and foremost and who doesn't appear to be hellbent on producing anything for ostensible commercial purposes but who does have a high international art-world profile - Simon Starling.

Tumim & Prendergast, you have made the key point I believe. Yes, progress depends on the journey not on the destination. In other words the process of careful ego free practice following on from where others have made pioneering ego free advances in interpreting our world and saying something profound about our emotional relationship with the sensual environment is the only way forward. The art has to be innovative, make profound connections with the human spirit at the highest level and, of course, it must be extremely well presented and skillfully produced. Then there is a chance that it will be recognised and appreciated for being avant garde. And don't forget that most human endeavour is entirely irrational so for every new found movement or artist there are probably many others producing as valid, skillful and meaningful work which is not recognised or celebrated. History shows us that in any era there are wonderful artists who are overshadowed by the commercially popular "celebrities" with the essential connections and marketing who will always be known, accepted and honoured by the establishment because, as we all know, it is who you know rather than what you know!! I appreciate that it is the individual in both science and art who has pushed forward the boundaries of wht is possible. Einstein and Fleming in science and Picasso and Atget in art. Yes, we all know about the charisma of Einstein and Picasso but how many know of the far more reticent Fleming who discovered penicillin and Atget who is the patron saint of documentary photography!! 

Chris, Yes, "Spend less money. Travel less. Make art that doesn’t pander to the demands of institutions and industry."  That is exactly why I am very suspicious of art on a grand scale that can only be accommodated in large institutions or gargantuan private homes. I am against monumentalism in all forms whether it is the tallest building or the largest work of art. I prefer "small is beautiful" for obvious human scale, ecological and political reasons. I abhor the gigantic topiary of dogs, the mangled steelwork of the 2012 Olympics and the one eyed monsters! The most interesting work is small in scale, infinitely smaller in financial outlay and does not involve travelling to every major country and city! That rules out most of the big name attractions currently drawing crowds. It certainly doesn't pander to the demands of institutions and industry. Let us now praise the common man and woman who through skillful and painstaking diligence and perception discovers something in a petrie dish that rocks the world and changes our bleak climate for the better.

 http://www.trueworldhistory.info/

Gil Scott Heron: "The revolution will not be telivised" 

I think as artists we have to follow our noses and stick to our guns i.e maintain integrity and be true to our own way of seeing the world.

I agree.

i wrote about this the other day -

http://bit.ly/sje5ox