From the 1913 Armory Show in New York which was front page news to Jackson Pollack appearing on the cover of life magazine to Warhol and the Pop movement, it seems that contemporary art has been falling further and further out of the consciousness of the general public. Perhaps this is a factor of the commercial art world, which has grown more business oriented, and more akin to a specialty niche marketplace which only embraces it's own rather than focusing on cultivating new audiences. It is not maintained that the collective populous ever uniformly cherished art, but it was part of the discourse, the public imagination and it certainly is not now.
There appears to be a marked difference in other countries such as England, and Germany for instance when it comes to recognition and awareness of contemporary artists. The antics of Tracey Emin, Damien Hirst and other members of the still percolating YBA movement have garnered so many headlines over the past decade that knowledge of their art and sometimes behavior have trickled down from the echelons of the art establishment to just about every cab driver. From Emin nearly puking drunk live on TV to Hirst's filleted animals, the fodder of tabloids has culminated in advertising campaigns featuring Emin posing in Viviane Westwood and even peddling booze (a cynical angle that wouldn't float in puritanical America). Hirst's signature vitrines are aped in all sorts of media from political cartoons to insurance adverts. In Germany, though most may disagree with the artistic merit of a pile of fat casually clumped in the corner of a room, the majority recognizes Beuys' output. Further, it is not uncommon to spy one of his unlimited editions in the home of a middle class family with no art contacts. Not since Warhol garnered a Love Boat TV series cameo has an American artist neared that level of notoriety.
Television-wise, in any given year, the measly 5 stations in the UK boast more contemporary arts programming than the past 5 years in the US. There has been countless UK documentaries on artists of all stripes, and many instances where artists have been commissioned to create original segments for TV. This is a phenomenon with virtually no parallel in the US. Here we are treated to episodes of 60 Minutes, "Yes, But is it Art Part I & II" where a busload of kids are stood before a Basquiat painting and queried whether they could do a better job. Critic Robert Hughes had a Public Broadcasting Network special a number of year's back where he expounded upon how initials scratched into a tree was more artistic than contemporary art. He was some prescient choice to helm the curator's post for the upcoming Venice Biennial, shame he withdrew. Of late in the US, there was the monotonous thematic show entitled Egg, which touched on art from time to time and was in turn cancelled, and Art 21, which profiled a group of contemporary artists last year, over the course of four episodes. Though the reported audience remarkably totaled 2 million for the entire broadcast, and more were ordered, the show stuck to an unprogressive, uninspired format that lacked even rudimental entertainment value. Financing has yet to be locked into place to fund a continuation of the series.
During the summer of 2002 a non-scientific survey was conducted featuring on-the-street interviews with in excess of 100 randomly selected individuals in Manhattan neighborhoods from Wall Street to Harlem. The intent was to subjectively gauge general perceptions of the relevance of contemporary art to the everyday lives of a cross-section of people. Questions were posed to take the pulse of how people felt about galleries, museums, technology in art, and notions of beauty, among others. Additionally, when there was some level of familiarity with art and artists among interview subjects, a laundry list was read containing names from Picasso to Matthew Barney to get a glimpse of how well the art world communicates its most talented ranks across societal boundaries.
Gone are the days of Picasso or Abstract Expressionism where an artist or movement held sway in the imagination of the general pubic. Though art was prominent in the minds of many as a personalized inward notion of creativity explored on a regular basis, contemporary art was judged a specialized professional niche more akin to the study of artificial intelligence. In fact, a number of those interviewed sensed the intelligence bandied about in the professional art world to be artificial. Under the guise of art was considered a wide of variety of activities from cutting hair, rap, and architecture, to the way a person walks across the street; that is, everything save for contemporary art itself.
Although a common explanation of the role of art was to reflect emotions and an interpretation of the world the way it is experienced-there was a marked contrast with the fact that no one acknowledged contemporary art's penchant to do this. Could it be a hesitancy to accept the current uncertain state of society or at least to do so through the lens of the present-day artist? "Art is dead" could also relate to the fact that civility is felt to be dead, which is not just endemic to the art world but to society at large. New art has lost its ability to meaningfully communicate to a broad-based audience beyond other art professionals. There was rarely an instance where contemporary art evinced any particular relevance to the daily lives of people not enmeshed in the world of art. Additionally, there was a conviction that contemporary artists and art professionals purposefully obfuscate art and the context within which it is viewed to make it overly erudite and hence more dear.
Aside from a mirroring of present day political and social woes that no one wants to face, a possible rationalization for the disinclination towards new art forms was the consent that they are lacking a traditional sense of skill, technique and human touch involved in the processes. This is especially so in the realms of computer and video art which are seen as not just a short cut, but akin to cheating. Another telling comment was that present art making was viewed as "images of images of images", thus a removal, or distancing of art production from primary experience or traditional notions of beauty and affirmed art subject matter. Though, in contravention to this sentiment, most would be unaware of the derision the lot of Impressionists and Post Impressionists were met with when first exhibiting their paintings versus the universal admiration and blockbuster status they were met with here, where "Target stores have all the Van Gogh prints!"
A backlash to art viewed as shocking, call it The Sensation Syndrome after the Saatchi collection exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum in 1999, was manifest which inured people from being affected by art judged offensive. Today there is a weariness, numbness, and level of familiarity with art meant to affront in the vein of Damien Hirst to the extent that this variety of art is regarded academic, as stated: "Breaking the rules is practically a college course". Also, by pandering to the aesthetics of offensiveness, the only emotions elicited from the general public were that those efforts smacked of juvenilia.
There was a clear skepticism in such comments as contemporary art was an inside joke and "a racket", and not of the Richard Prince variety. The only idea about geometry in art shared by interview subjects was the perception that a line delineates the real world from the art world, describing distinct spheres where there is no crossover only mutual alienation. Characterizations ranging from soulless, to fraud, to being too cerebral-all were geared towards rationalizing a dismissal of new art. This seems to be recognized as the fault of artists from failing to make an effort to connect with the rest of society. As put forth by one: "Artists live in a post modern dreamy dreamy world."
"Now its greed it's just making money, it's become big business like everything else. You buy a name". Art is seen as part of the Prada parade and artists are nothing more then brand names where people buy into trends or fashion whether or not there is a full comprehension of the significance of the artwork at hand. "It's about buying and owning rather than appreciating beauty." This is in contrast to feelings that art is part of the patrimony of the country, something not to be profited from and something at everyone's disposal. "I don't know if the pubic cares anymore. It's kind of sad. It's closed doors." This is surprising in light of the lack of admission to gain entry to galleries, art being the only free lunch in town! However, refreshingly, the majority of participants didn't consider art strictly for the wealthy; rather, what turned people off was the content of the art itself ("New art is like-you know Coors Light") and the environs in which it is observed that was largely responsible for the antagonism and aversion. Galleries and even museums were widely viewed as clinical, sterile, and elitist-all adjectives of intimidation, where there was a shared feeling of antipathy relating to the art going experience: "I don't like it when they follow you around everywhere and they don't want you to touch anything."
Despite the popular appeal of architecture largely wrought by the Guggenheim phenomenon ("I've been to a couple of Guggenheims in Europe") there is a tedium in the sameness of gallery interiors the world over. That galleries do little to encourage an extended diversity audience-wise was handily expressed by the following: "People who go there are predominantly people who are interested in art anyway." And once in galleries, the cold glances of the staffs were related as a palpable browbeating, "You feel a pressure to look a certain way." In the end, commercial galleries would better serve the public by chipping away at barriers, rather than erecting them higher. "I think the biggest hurdle is to get people to go to the galleries who don't necessarily go to begin with."
Beauty figured as an integral component of art in the minds of many but surprisingly the definition accorded was an expansive interpretation with a wide net cast beyond traditional ideas of what constitutes a pretty picture. Beauty being in the eye of the beholder, an oft-repeated cliché, seemed to indicate an accepting, liberal conception of how subjective taste can be.
Those with a trace of art knowledge, or strong opinions about art were not without artful senses of humor. When asked about whether they had made or bought art, one person remarked "I'm too poor to be a collector and untalented to be an artist". Vocalizing the frequently held incredulity towards art was the following gem: "I could spread myself with peanut butter and play around Washington Square Park and call it art". Not a bad idea for a performance piece, watch out Vito Acconci. On acclaimed Brit bad boy, Damien Hirst: "What he does is interesting for three minutes." One easy step to morph a layman into an artist-"you can turn it into art if you frame it." Lastly, on the prevalence of the internet and computers now ubiquitous in biennials and galleries: "Computers are good for tracking locust infestations in the third world. A computer found a computer for my son when he needed it four years ago." Take that, Whitney Bitstreams.
As far as the recognition of artists ranging from Picasso to Mathew Barney, while there seemed universal awareness of Picasso and Warhol ("He's done wonders for advertising"), there were less than a handful of people who recognized the names of artists like John Currin, Janine Antoni and Cecily Brown. As Barney is perhaps the most acclaimed US artist of his generation, it was not surprising that no more than three people had even a passing acquaintance with his work, given his and his dealer's reluctance to seek wide dissemination of his art and films. As Matthew Barney said in a New York Times Magazine article by Michael Kimmelman, October 10, 1999 entitled The Importance of Matthew Barney: "If a work is shown too many times, something gets stolen from it. You come to it with preconceptions, or you get tired of it. And it's the same with an artist. So I try to protect myself and my work." The result of this protectionist attitude with regard to the artist and his work is that he is not only an enigma but also one that remains unknown to most. The following pithily sums it up: "Uh, I know Barney's the store."
Actually, in spite of mild to medium malaise for ultra contemporary art, there was a shared open-mindedness pertaining to art broadly defined, across a wide spectrum of communities. We are on the threshold of an unparalleled opportunity to expand upon art appreciation and acceptance internationally. Examples in the museum world shed light on how the entrepreneurial sector (i.e. galleries) can seize back the initiative to turn the table on contemporary art phobia. One positive new effort on the landscape is the Guggenheim in the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas, an initiative that is sure to open more than a few unsuspecting eyes of hotel guests to the merit, and worthiness of looking at newer art. Another undertaking is the Palais des Tokyo in Paris, a fresh, raw, unorthodox museum with the atmosphere and hours of a bar or nightclub but filled with challenging and experimental new art production. If the private galleries follow suit, we could be on the verge of an unbounded rise in contemporary art acceptance and patronage.
