What is
art if you have no words, fitting enough, to express it?
Contemporary
visual art has allowed itself to be multiplied in manifestations; there are
virtually no boundaries that prescribe its existence. To draw limits to its ever-loosening
definition is doomed to be labelled as passé to the same effect that to criticize
contemporary art review is risked being scorned malicious, or out-of-touch for
those with grey hair like me. For the majority of so called art critiques,
due to the powerful influences of galleries and auction houses, homogenized
tastes have emerged from narrowing viewpoints.
Generalized aesthetic verbiage has been developed among stakeholders and critical reviews are few and far between. Artists are likely to be cushioned with a literacy of compliments and never quite straightened up from a quasi-philosophical obfuscation. The public’s response to contemporary art is retreated to sensations at large. For those who have a keen heart on the subject and a mind to match, quality writings are painfully inadequate.
Generalized aesthetic verbiage has been developed among stakeholders and critical reviews are few and far between. Artists are likely to be cushioned with a literacy of compliments and never quite straightened up from a quasi-philosophical obfuscation. The public’s response to contemporary art is retreated to sensations at large. For those who have a keen heart on the subject and a mind to match, quality writings are painfully inadequate.
Differing
Voices
Paradoxically,
we are faced with a proliferation of interests in art exemplified by a
wholesale increase of art museums and art fairs; yet the quality of art commentary
seems to be in a reverse ratio with the pricing of artworks. At crisis point, the critique system is overshadowed by the powerful gallery curators, celebrity artists and plush collectors. In recent years prominent commentators have
expressed grave reservations on the quality of art writings. Independent heavy-weights, by that I mean
those recognized experts who are not related to the mercantile of art such as Benjamin
Buchloh, have postulated “the withering away of criticism”¹.
Buchloh
explained: “As I said in my earlier
remark, the other side of this historical phenomenon entails the dismantling of
competence through the market, where the public sphere of the museum is no
longer calling for this third independent voice between the producer and the
recipient. It is at such a moment, when
it has become more than evident that the critic has no place anymore in our
cultural structures, that rhapsodic substitutes like Dave Hickey can come back
in the picture, appearing as though he was resuscitating the obsolete practice
of criticism by giving us something that has no social function, no discursive
position, but that serves as a critical placebo.”²
Ten years
after Buchloh’s remark, Dave Hickey himself announced his
departure from the art scene and concluded on The Observer in October 2012: “What
can I tell you? It’s nasty and it’s stupid. I am an intellectual and I don’t
care if I’m not invited to the party. I quit.”³ Both commentators are not the lone voices;
from the internet one can easily harvest the same thought from Christian
Demand, Michael Newman, James Elkins, the late Robert Hughes among others. To hark back to first principles if we
consult the writings by John Ruskin or even Denis Diderot, it is not what critics argue as truth, but rather their diverse viewpoints that are anything but
consensus opinions.
Testing
Sentences
This is
not an occasion of art bashing. With
more shame than bitterness, the quality of art writings today does not add up
to the good art around. The situation is
a serious setback to the understanding of contemporary art and for the art
community to flourish through the counterpoint of debate. To look at the state of contemporary art
writing afresh, we propose a simple test for readers below. The listed works and their related statements
have been deliberately misplaced, the reader is asked to re-arrange them in their
original pairings. For this exercise,
the air-inflated installations organized by M+ and their official statements
are used. The reason of this
choice? These artworks challenges the
boundaries of art in the same sense that the texts might shed more light on
The
correct pairings are shown at the bottom of this article.
The above
installations from ‘Inflation’ were organized by M+, Hong Kong from 25 April –
9 June, 2013.
Bibliography:
1 and 2.
Buchloh, Benjamin, Hal Foster, Andrea Fraser, David Joselit, Rosalind Krauss,
et al. “Round Table: The Present Conditions of Art Criticism.” October no. 100 (Spring 2002)
3. Helmore,
Edward and Paul Gallagher. “Doyen of American Critics turns his back on the
‘nasty, stupid’ world of modern art” The
Observer, 28 October, 2012. Linkage
at here:
Answers:
<1> <C>; <2> <B>; <3> <F>; <4> <G>;
<5> <A>; <6> <E> and <7> <D>.
Sarcastic
but with true irony, the following is a skewed way to look at contemporary art
writings:
藝評膨脹與文字潤飾 〈中文摘要〉
假如沒有至誠高節的文字表達，藝術算是什麼？
無疑視覺藝術在當下正是百花齊放，創意與形式盡是無遠弗屆。嘗試規劃它的彊界，絕對遭人詬病；嘗試批評當代藝術文章亦每每被扣上惡毒心腸或過時落後的帽子。現今大部份所謂藝評均受畫廊及拍賣行左右；廣泛的同質化品味在狹窄的制度下充斥。持份者只顧鑽研概括及浮誇的文字，具批判性的評論卻是鳳毛麟角。讀者大多耽溺於褒揚的文筆，窘惑於似是而非的哲學藩籬。大眾對當代藝術評價只能取决自直覺及官能反應。對擁有深度思考能力的觀眾而言，高質素的文章匱竭異常。若情况持續，藝術發展務必是受害方；正如斷了線的風箏，無疑它是自由，但它的存在亦徒然。沒有搬出維根斯坦底下，筆者冒險回答上述議題。
弔詭是，此刻世界湧現藝術熱潮；坊間美術館及高檔展賣繁多，帷藝評水準與藝術作品售價成反比現象。脆弱的藝評制度及風氣受驕矜的策展人、明星藝術家及顯貴收藏界不斷冲擊。近年不少權威的評論家均對時下的藝術文章極具保留。眾多國際重量級評論家，不涉賣買藝術制度之獨立人仕，慨嘆評論的興亡已達岌岌可危之險。筆者已將部份論述的超連結提供，在此不贅。
本文無意攻擊當代藝術，只特意聚焦目下藝文之水平遠遠不及優秀藝術作品。這情况既阻礙對藝術的了解，藝術家的培育，在缺乏認真辯證下，亦不能得以正道的滋養。就當代藝文狀况，筆者編制一簡單遊戲，徒以刺激思考。本版英語上文列出M+的《充氣》裝置展照片及官方文字介紹，但它們的次序卻故意被錯配。通過閲讀及再次配置過程，務使讀者重新審視部份當代藝文，內容陳腔又乏味的狀態。因資源所限，本文未能提供中文遊戲版本；但對於中文編撰的當代藝文而言，以開放及自主角度論，筆者或敢武斷情况要比西方的更糟糕，更需正視。
正確的次序在英語原文之下。
