Art now: What is the theoretical horizon within which contemporary practice is understood?

“Art and Object” an essay by art critic Michael Fried (1967) published in Artforum was regarded as controversial. In fact Fried himself stated “This essay will be read as an attack on certain artists (and critics) and a defense for others”. An “attack”, because Fried critically picks apart the genre of minimalist art, for which he coined the phrase “literalist” art. Fried examines literalist art against that of modernist painting and sculpture, to argue “What is it about objecthood as projected and hypostatized by the literalist that makes it, if only from the perspective of recent modernist painting antithetical to art?”

Fried uses the literalist’s essential theory of “objecthood” to unhinge its own argument. His claim that the theory of “objecthood” does more in fact to reaffirm modernist painting and sculpture’s relevance by proving their value beyond operating simply as objects as with literalist art. Fried suggests that there seems to be something else; an extra element present in modernist painting and sculpture which holds our interest and this Fried insists is the point of art.

This ‘extra element’, ‘something else’ I refer to, also occurs in the in the book “Thinking through Craft”, by the Academic Glenn Adamson (2007)

Included in chapter 3:-“Skilled” we are given the scenario in the studio of “the famous potter Bernard Leach.”

I believe Adamson presents a valid point in arguing for the importance of ‘skill’; that is the skill involved and/or required in the craft of making. What I feel is relevant within this complex discussion surrounding ‘skill’ is that the point within the craft work of Leach, is not merely in its functional or literal object value.

This can be illustrated in the statement by the potter Bill Marshal, deemed in the profession as “technically the best thrower in the pottery”. In his evaluation of Leach’s work he remarks, “Bernard can’t throw worth a damn. But he makes better pots than any of us”. This suggests some other phenomena affecting our experience of and interaction with works of this calibre.  

 Fried quotes the artist Robert Morris regarding his view, on how art should aim to communicate -” Whereas in previous art – “what is to be had from the work is located strictly within (it), “the experience of literalist art is of an object...”. This seems interesting with regards to my previous point about the idea of an extra element present; or at play within a work creating a shift that I will suggest when a work becomes something to be evaluated; or comprehended as art?      

Something that I found most interesting in Fried’s essay was his shift in tone during the conclusion. For what had begun as a rigorous critical “attack” develops a tone more sympathetic to the literalist’s plight.

Fried finishes by saying - “concepts of literalism and theater have specifically motivated what I have written. More generally, however, I have wanted to call attention to the utter pervasiveness- the virtual universality-of the sensibility or mode of being which I have characterized as corrupted or perverted by theater.” We are all literalists most of our lives. Presentness is grace.”

Fried’s conclusive words in “Art and object” appear driven by a desire to sustain belief in literalism as an ideal theory? If in fact he was convinced. However his review would prove the literalist’s “espousal” failed to convince him. For when Fried analyses the fundamental essence of literalist’s art, that which is “Objecthood,” he finds fundamental faults… “The literalist espousal of objecthood amounts to nothing more than theater and theater is now the negation of art.”

Glenn Adamson Thinking Through Craft, Oxford: Berg, 2007, pp.69-101.

Michael Fried "Art and Object" Artforum, vol. V no.10, June 1967, pp. 12-23

Theory and practice: What does it mean to work with theoretical material as a practitioner?

In response to the question and readings of Thierry de Duve and Chris Kraus, I will make a statement which I feel is relevant to my response and which resonated from their work.

I believe that before one can claim to be an art practitioner, one must initially establish a method of art practice. This requires a level of consciousness about the motivation and conviction for making art. Secondly the necessary process of identifying the ideas inherent in the work follows; conceptual components.  A ‘position’ or stance is relevant or current in the contemporary art world.  

 I felt that the issue of assuming a ‘position’ for one’s practice was also alluded to by Thierry de Duve and Chris Kraus. Perhaps more importantly, that to clarify a ‘position’ within contemporary art is to understand that the system and context within which the artist operates is a fundamental cache. To clarify their ‘position’, an artist should understand the historical context into which their work fits within a particular genre, and what responses the work might provoke. In Kraus’s words “anything that might be read as actual art in the contemporary art world” (p-147). The artist’s position when challenged demands astute comprehension and knowledge of the context of the work and its conceptualisation.

 Kraus’s “defeated” student gives an explicit account of the danger of naivety, simply ‘making’ while ignorant of intent and therefore awareness of how the work may be critiqued.

 Kraus’s message is direct and blunt. Ignorance of the effect of one’s art is unacceptable in the art world. Knowledge is power, or as in the incident of Kraus’s student, who could have validated her “art” had it be known to her “that anything is permissible in the contemporary art world so long as it is pedigreed, substantiated, referentialized”. (P-147)

I will relate Kraus’s article to the later question of what the significance is then of theoretical material for the creative practitioner. Or, in light of Kraus’s student, what alternatively might be the implication of the absence of theoretical material. If we understand theory as denotation; to verify and challenge the practical nature of art.

For me, theory is the contemplation and speculation which precedes the action of my ‘practice’. It enables me to understand, verify and challenge what I do and the context within which my practice exists.

As a creative practitioner working within an art institution, I find it interesting to examine Thierry de Duve’s “diagnosis” of “historical ideological paradigms” (P-30) including that of “the present day situation” (p-26).

 De Duve believes that there is a fundamental problem or conundrum within the complex nature of art teaching. De Duve’s account seems cynical. He claims that there is currently a “crisis” (P-31) that he cannot offer a “cure” for.

He goes on to state that “significant art is art that overthrows, displays, abandons or subverts rules and conventions” (p-25). He then advocates that a truly successful student is one that “… displayed awareness of what art-making is about.”(p-25).

 I tend to agree with De Duve’s assertion. Although I myself work within a set paradigm which evaluates my practice against its own prescribed pedagogy, I do not feel restricted or that it is a constraint within which  I“ willy-nilly have to work” (p-30) . When considering how theory (material) works for the creative practitioner within an institution, I return to my earlier statement; theory is the contemplation and speculation which precedes the action of my practice.

I believe therefore that the method of working with theory serves as the means for an ends. To understand how knowledge serves to assert a ‘position’ of empowerment within the context of one’s practice. It gives me license to practice. To know how to break the rules you must understand also how they work!