Every new art movement comes with a reactionary group of protestors claiming that it's not /real/ art. Social practice art, I believe, is no exception. We've seen this story played out time and time again. Social practice art is just the newest thing for critics to berate, and I believe that in a couple of decades, this movement will become part of the greater art lexicon the same way Impressionism is. Art that pushes boundaries, especially if that boundary is the question of what exactly art is, will always discomfort. However, social practice art presents a series of new challenges unique to its purpose and style.
It goes beyond social practice art. It's all contemporary art. Just take a look at student attitude of contemporary art in the microcosm of MLWGS. The amount of times I've heard things akin to "I could do that" when talking about semi-modern art movements like abstract expressionism is bizarre. I think, as usual, the best way to approach an explanation of this disconnect between contemporary art and the public (in regards to the question of what constitutes art) is to look at some history. In the 1800s, the Impressionists were initially regarded as untalented artists who were needlessly pushing the boundaries of art. The idea of visible brush strokes and the inclusion of the artist’s own perceptions and experiences had been unheard of, causing the style to face harsh opposition from the conventional art community of France. In the present day, Impressionist work is showcased right next to the Old Masters. Every subsequent art movement following Impressionism, all of which extended the definition of art in some way, has received backlash from the audience. In their contemporary times, Cubism looked too primitive, Dadaism was too simple, and Precisionists were too stiff, but now these artists are displayed in national galleries. It’s almost cyclical in its nature - a group of modern artists push the boundaries of art, conventional critics and community rail against it, fifty or so years later the movement is praised to have produced beautiful and new art. Applying this pattern to the modern day, I think we’re just too close to see the bigger picture forming. So social practice art. Members of the traditional art world are acting the way their historical counterparts did: reactionarily. Maureen Mullarkey, a NY painter, wrote "that art is increasingly not about art at all" and that is it "fast becoming a variant of community organizing by soi-disant promoters of their own notions of the common good" (7). Undoubtedly, social practice art is distinct. Aesthetic takes a backseat to more egalitarian purposes. It presents a host of new challenges; traditional museums have difficulty displaying such art within their own institutions (5). But with it, I believe, it presents a host of new benefits. I've always believed art has been inaccessible to members of the non-wealthy human population (call it controversial, but art is an indisputable luxury that requires excess time, and increasingly, knowledge of history to be able to enjoy; I use non-wealthy as a descriptor for those who do not have to worry about food being on the table). However, social practice art is able to reach outside of this base demographic. For example, a private institution founded by Emily Pulitzer that staffed two full-time social workers who helped former prison inmates and homeless veterans as part of a curatorial program was able to reach out to the poor and create real change for non-aesthetic reasons (6). In the end, social practice art will absorb into mainstream art and carve a place for itself in the world, and the definition of art will be pushed again by another movement. But for now, it's just a waiting game until that day comes.
4 Comments
3/25/2019 08:30:37 am
I like your approach to looking at the historical perspective when it comes to social practice art. I had not thought about that! I agree that the art world is spending a lot of time reacting instead of absorbing, listening, watching it play out, and then reacting to the pieces. It's different and that's ok! It's new and that's ok! There's room to grow and morph and change.
Reply
Renny McFadin !
3/26/2019 05:48:13 pm
I admit, it has been hard for me to view social practice art as an actual movement … but you make a really valid point. The invisibility of the aesthetic is really jarring and makes me question the validity of the movement, but I agree in your stance that this is something we need. Even public museums are flourishing under the capitalist mindset of our nation, so movements like these- that target those of less economic status- are really beneficial to the enlightenment of the general public via art. It creates a public awareness previously unavailable, and promotes a positive attitude to an expression constantly railed against (that being the arts).
Reply
Eileen Morley
3/26/2019 06:55:45 pm
I like your approach to the question through history and various art movements, but I still feel like social practice art is something completely different. It can't be showcased in museums. It can't be traditionally critiqued. It can't be bought. I thought it was interesting how you said, "Impressionist work is showcased right next to the Old Masters," when this will not be the case for the radically new form of social practice art. A lot of it won't be around fifty years from now and was never meant to go in a museum. And I wonder about work like that of Emily Pulitzer; isn't that just a form of community outreach? What about social workers who have quietly been doing their great work for years? Is that only 'social practice art' when a private institution pays a lot of money to get it recognized? That most certainly proves your point that art is only for the wealthy.
Reply
Molly Goodman
3/27/2019 07:28:10 am
I strongly agree with your opinion that social practice art is following the same pattern that Impressionism and other styles of art did. With every new style of art that gets heavily critiqued, art seems to grow closer and closer to the general population (rather than a select group of rich art collectors or highly-educated people or already-successful artists), and social practice art definitely follows this trend. Even though it runs the risk of toeing the line between helpful/useful/etc. and condescending, social practice art is crucial to the development of the art world because of its closeness to communities outside of the traditionally exclusive artistic "bubble."
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2019
Categories |