 |
A grumpy old man's perspective on the art meets science phenomena |
 |
Succeeding as an artist 101 |
 |
Podcast of Tim's Art/Sci lecture at the National Museum of Australia |
 |
A few tips on buying art in general |
published on and reproduced from the Arts Hub site
As part of the ANU National Science Week activities I was asked to give a public lecture at the National Museum of Australia on art, science and what happens when they come together - so called Art/sci. Given that I was once a professional research scientist and now work as a practicing sculptor, the powers that be presumably decided that I was the right guy for the job and I make it a policy not to argue with the powers that be! So I set about a little journey of exploration to see if I could condense my thoughts on the matter into a few vaguely sensible words that I could vent on the public without getting too many rotten tomatoes thrown at me. An overdose of classical education in my youth dictated the only possible starting point to be getting to grips with some definitions.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines science as "A branch of knowledge conducted on objective principles involving the systematized observation and experiment..etc. etc." In fact, it has quite a lot to say on the matter and definitely leaves me with the feeling that the human race is pretty clear about what exactly science is. Art on the other hand, is afforded the cursory description "Human creative skill or its application." It gave me the feeling that despite the tomes that have been devoted to the topic of what art is, we're still not quite sure. I wondered what other people thought? What was the public perception? Because after all, we make art for the public, and a lot of it is paid for by the taxpayer right? So what they think probably matters. My lecture at the National Museum gave me a good opportunity for a show of hands referendum on how "artistic" a number of very different works were seen to be. We began with some slides of Michael Angelo's David and the Mona Lisa. Two great corner stones in the foundations of western art. This was comfortable ground for us all. Everyone saw both as great works of art and even our dusty old friend the Oxford English had to agree. Undoubtedly created by humans with great skill. So far so good. Then we moved on to Jackson Pollock and most of us were still happy with the "art" label. Perhaps the work wasn't executed with the same technical finesse as the Mona Lisa, but it was nonetheless creative. It was also abstract and it was expressive, and well, we all remember art theory 101. What was clear though, was that Jackson's work was beginning to stretch the Oxford's comfort zone. Finally, I trotted out Marcel Duchamp's Fountain - an "off the shelf" urinal. It wasn't really an expression of creative skill, at least not of Marcel's creative skill, but was it art? By this stage I'd lost perhaps half of my "public hands" but many people (including myself) still saw the work as art. And indeed to me, the fact that were were still talking about it almost a century after it was exhibited proved it was actually quite a profound work of art. However, there was no doubt that whatever opinions were expressed in the theatre, the Oxford English had been left a long way behind. This sure wasn't dictionary art. Yet it was acclaimed by many theorists to be art at the highest level. What had gone wrong? I blamed the Oxford. I think it's view of art as just creative skill is a notch off the mark. Perhaps a better definition might be; Art, an object, image or performance presented in order to communicate an idea which might be difficult to express in other ways. Looking at it this way the urinal, the Mona Lisa and Blue Poles are all art. I felt good about this definition of art and was ready to think about what Art/sci could be and should be.
The Oxford didn't have a lot to say on this. In fact where Art/sci might logically be expected to appear, Arty-Farty was listed as "pretentiously artistic". It wasn't a good start and it was about to get a whole lot worse. Thinking that Art/sci might be a little pedestrian for the big black book, I turned to the internet. A Google image search for Art/sci returned a bunch of semi naked women with spears and guns and some sort of antennae things on their heads. It wasn't exactly what I had in mind. The images that popped into my head were of artworks that referenced science. Of art facilitated by science, Stelarc, Laura Cinti, stuff like that. Then I thought about a couple of Art/sci shows I'd seen around the traps over the years, and to be honest, I remembered that I had found some of them a bit disappointing. For the most part, they were just pretty pictures from various branches of science stuck on the wall in frames. Don't get me wrong, many of the images were really good technical photographs and they were pretty. But some part of me wasn't satisfied that they were really art. I thought of respected photographic artists like Tracy Moffett, John Ogden and Joachim Froese. Their images had a deeper, more profound quality. There were actually saying something. And there it was again, that idea of art as communication. An artist has something to say and uses his or her medium to say it. A scientific image, however spectacular it may be, is really just a statement of fact. "This is a bug". "This is what the great spiral galaxy in Andromeda looks like". To me, the artist's role is far more profound than mere statement of fact. It is to communicate not just what the Andromeda galaxy looks like but how it made you feel: Small and Insignificant? Powerful, in that mere humans had figured out how to build instruments that could see it? Scared because bug eyed monsters might be looking back at us from there? Something beyond pretty. Don't get me wrong, I like pretty. I have a pretty couch and a dinner set with some really pretty patterns on it and I love both. But in art I want something that I can get my teeth into. Something that speaks to me. I think that the common perception that any scientist can stick a picture on the wall and automatically become an artist is both wrong and disrespectful of our artists. It assumes that they just make pretty things to hang on the wall and that's all there is to it. Imagine if I wrote some gobeldygook equations and sent them to a leading mathematics journal because they bore a superficial resemblance to real maths? Actually, thinking about it, my maths tutor back at St Andrews would probably say that's exactly what I used to do! - but it didn't cut the mustard, and to be honest, nor do pretty pictures paraded as art.
I believe that art has a deeply significant role to play in science communication. It can interpret scientific concepts and the social changes they bring. It can make us aware of the human consequences. The sculptor Tony Cragg expressed this rather nicely when he said "In a sense it is obvious that in terms of the physical world, scientists make the more fundamental statements, but artists and philosophers don't have a less important job. They humanise, they find out what the significance of science is for human beings". I think that as artists, that is exactly what we should be doing. If we allow the perception of Art/sci to be just pretty pictures taken from science books then at best we become no more than decorators. At worst we undermine art's central and critical role in human society. Let's talk about science, because love it or hate it it's coming this way and there's a whole lot of it. It is going to change every aspect of the world and our lives. So let's do what we should as artists and explore what these profound technological changes mean to the human race.
It’s been said that those who fail to study history are doomed to repeat it. In art I think it’s often the opposite. Those who study the fascinating history of art are always going to be in danger of simply repeating what others have done before. Marcel Duchamp exhibited a urinal so if I exhibit perhaps a bed pan, or toilet bowl I’ll receive the same attention right? Well, no actually, no one will care. It doesn’t work that way.
Nor is it just a matter of doing something that’s never been done before. If you’re the first to exhibit an iceypole jammed where the sun don’t shine whilst painting yourself silver and hanging from the Eiffel tower that’s probably not going to cut the mustard either. What will? Who knows? That’s just the point.
What will be seen as great in the art world is not that predictable. You’ll have to do something that captures the imagination of millions be that in a good or bad way. And that’s not always a case of doing the most spectacular, gross, stupid or insane thing anyone can think of.
The enemy is indifference. It’s better to produce the most ugly, revolting and downright crap artwork imaginable (the temptation to mention names here is overwhelming!) than to create a nothing. Don’t create something no one even remembers from the show. Something the audience don’t even slow down to look at as they walk round. Of course if you can make something that blows everyone away with its utter brilliance, so much the better. But at all cost avoid bland.
Studying art of the past can help you here. Looking at what’s worked and what hasn’t – and especially that which has received the approval of history – I think there are some common factors. Most very successful artists have cared passionately for and believed in what they’ve created. They haven’t done it to get famous, pull girls (or boys) make money or become immortalized. They’ve done it because they feel compelled to and believe they’re creating brilliant work that simply must be brought into existence. Other times, they’re just barking mad. Many, if not most, have been both.
But it’s not always about the work. There are always going to be people that have succeeded by being someone’s son, daughter, great niece twice removed or even just been in the right place at the right time. Fortune is a fickle beast and it’s futile to try to tame her fury or court her flavour. If you happen to be the son of a megastar, use it for all it’s worth. If you don’t, get over it and accept that your work is going to have to speak for itself.
Generally speaking, the art establishment is about 30 years behind. Always has been, always will be. The French academic painters hated the Impressionists. The drug crazed abstract daubers of the 60’s and 70’s hated pretty much everyone that came before. The post modernists hate the daubers. That’s just how it is. And most people occupying the powerful “gatekeeper” positions will have been trained 30 years ago. So sometimes – though admittedly not always - they’re not going like your work if it doesn’t fit into the mould of what they consider good art. And if it does fit that mould, perhaps it’s not that original in the first place.
But don’t despair. You have a new best friend in the form of the internet, that will change the world in a more revolutionary way than has ever been seen in human history – no more so than in the world of art. The days of the gate-keeper are ending. You now have the ability to exhibit your work direct to the world. There’s no one left to blame, it’s just you and the audience.
The wonderful thing about the internet is that if you’re liked by the public, you work will prosper, if not, you’ll disappear into the obscurity of Google results page 36. It’s brutal, it’s indifferent to you feelings but above all it unbiased.
A whole new world has opened up for artists offering a golden opportunity to the original genius. But it’s also the end of the age of excuses! We can no longer blame the prejudice of selectors or nepotism. Now our art will stand or fall on its merits in the eyes of the great unwashed. And since art is supposed to be all about communication, perhaps that’s the way it should be.
So suppose you finally hit the jackpot. You create something amazing, new, popular and the world clamors at your door for more. What then? Success can be as great a danger as failure. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s comedies and Woody Allen’s straight films are a dire warnings of what can go wrong once an artist becomes hugely successful and has leave to do as he/she pleases! Even once you think you’ve beaten the beast of fortune, it may well be sneaking up behind you to bash you all over again!
The purchase of a work of art can be a fantastic investment if the artist becomes better known and better respected further down the track. The difficulty is that once an artist becomes famous enough to command high prices, the price you pay for the work is also high. So the trick is to buy works by artists relatively early in their careers. But which artists? Unfortunately the vast majority of artists never make any significant name for themselves and their works do not increase in value. Contrary to popular belief the value of an artist's work doesn't always skyrocket once they die. The work of a dead nobody is no more valuable that that of a live nobody - harsh but true!
So how do you know which work to buy?
First and foremost, only buy art you like. Chances are you won't be getting rich off your investment (at least not in a hurry) so it's far better to have a work you really love enriching your surroundings than something ugly sitting in the corner waiting for the day it becomes valuable. You'll also be supporting an artist whose work you admire and encouraging him/her to create more works in that style.
Next look at which exhibitions your artist has been in. Are they major shows that you've heard of, or obscure backstreet venues with impressive sounding names? Has Google heard of them? What other artists have been in the same show or at the same gallery? This can be one of the most useful measures of how much promise an early career artist has. If your chosen artist has been in a group show with someone like Bert Flugelman, then clearly that show is taken seriously in the art world and the selection judges wouldn't be including rubbish in it. Major group shows are the toughest exhibitions to get into because the judges only select a handful of artists from hundreds and thousands of applications. If the expert judges think your horse (artist) has promise, that's a good sign.
How long has your chosen artist been producing work? The art world is tough and very unfair. Trying to make a career of art generally sucks, so most early career artists give up and stop making work. If this happens, you're investment is out of the race. If your chosen artist has managed to stick in there for a few years, they may well go the distance.
Never underestimate the power of Google! Most artists have a web site, but what's more interesting is what other web sites are they on? Are they talked about much on line, in the arts media etc?
What is the likely longevity of the work you have in mind? Most artists are neither conservators nor structural engineers. A long spindly outdoor work will probably be destroyed by the next gale. An outdoor plaster work will be disolved by rain and frost in about 2 to 5 years. If it's a horribly delicate indoor work chances are it will get smashed. Michelangelo was once required by his patron to create an ice sculpture (much to his disgust!) What's it worth today? It's always a good idea to consider the structural integrity, materials and build quality of a piece of art you buy. Most artists are also more than happy to give you a realistic estimate of how long any of their pieces will last.
If you're looking for a failsafe investment in the art world buy an original Van Gough, you can't loose. But if that's a bit rich for your pocket, you can with careful choice, buy a reasonably priced original artwork that will look great in your home and increase in value. You'll also be helping and encouraging an artist to develop his/her career.