Tags
Related Posts
Share This
The Shape of Content by Ben Shahn
This book was originally published in 1957, my copy is from the 1972 fifth reprinting, The Shape of Content is Shahn’s overall view of art, its place in society, the artists role, and of course, how to be an artist. It’s fairly short, and nicely written with plenty of interesting ideas.
The first Chapter – Artists in Colleges – deals with the, then new, association the Fine Arts had with the university system. He quotes from a Havard study done on the “artist-teacher” which, even back then, noticed how artists entering the university administration made less and less art over time until they were not artists anymore. That University’s picked, not the best artists, or the best teachers, but those that got along in the bureaucratic system most easily. None of this is news to anyone, but it was surprising to me that even at the outset of Fine Art in college, these problems were well-known. Still Shahn’s view is that both the academic side and the art side benefit from the inclusion.
The third chapter is – The Shape of Content – where Shahn basically says that form is content, and content is form. Shahn uses the example of the triad, the trinity, the triptych, that the form of 3, as in the holy trinity appeared many times in early art and that it, over time, becomes content itself. I think this idea is more a reaction against the ever advancing forms of abstraction that were happening during the 50′s and 60′s, when realism, story telling, or anything personal were seen as old, out of date, unworthy elements for the Fine Arts.
Chapter 4 – On Nonconformity -
It may be a point of great pride to have a Van Gogh on the living room wall, but the prospect of having Van Gogh himself in the living room would put a good many devoted art lover to rout.
HA!
What is it about us, the public, and what is it about conformity itself that causes us all to require it of our neighbors and of our artists and then, with consummate fickleness, to forget those who fall into line and eternally celebrate those who do not?
Chapter 5 – Modern Evaluations – Discussing an ongoing debate Shahn has with a scientist friend he writes -
In our conversations my friend returns constantly to one problem; that is the measurements of value. He appears to seek a tangible, I might even say quantitative, basis upon which, objectively, a piece of work may be pronounced good or bad. I haven’t been able to help him much in this quest.
I think this is the reason why Art doesn’t quite fit in the University system, why large portions of the general public, tolerate, but don’t really care about art, and why our society in general, doesn’t quite support the arts in many meaningful ways. Even compared to something similar, like music, why is it that in general the public feels less inclined to have an interest, or an opinion on the fine arts. I’m not sure how many people put much stock in something like the MTV music awards, but it doesn’t seem to stop anyone from finding music they love, if they want to. Is the same true for Fine Art? doesn’t seem like it. And isn’t this the problem we all have with Etsy? Quality control, but whose quality control?
Like most artists I am deeply offended by the application of public approval as a standard for the evaluation of art. But I am certainly equally in disagreement with that curiously perverse standard of non-approval. For however degraded the public intelligence may have become through long-term, calculated efforts to pander to it, or however spoiled the public eye, it is still the public itself that is the reality of our culture. Here is the fertile soil in which to sow your lilies. Here is the source of manifold instances for art, the wellspring of emotions that are not warmed-over, and of unexpected, unique detail. We, as artists, may exist upon the fringe of this reality or we may be an essential part of it; that is up to us.
What do you think?
keep it coming chad
I just can’t get enough
you’ve touched on a lot of interesting points that I feel could be discussed for hours. But yeah, there’s two in particular I’d like to comment on, if I could.
There seems to be a lot of opinions about what artists should do after graduation. I have had a few thoughts on that over the years (obviously trying to figure that our for myself). There’s a kind of pressure on you once you graduate. Or a litmus test to see if you’ll keep creating. I was surprised when after graduation, I had people commending me for still making work, and it was honestly quasi irritating. Because it’s just, this is what I you do. It makes you who you are. Stopping because you have a degree doesn’t make a lick of sense. There also seems to be this notion that whether or not you remain an artist after college depends on the type of job you get. You could work for a university, and (like Shahn is saying), you get wrapped up in the university system and make less and less work. I have not seen this to be the case with most of the instructors I had in college. (If anything, their job allowed them to make more work), but I’m sure it happens. When I told my instructors I was moving to NY, their opinion was NOT to get a job in the arts, because then I’d fall into whatever duties that art job took instead of making my own work. I’ve never had a job in the arts here in NY, but have artist friends that do, that are still active artists. I had a friend who worked under a famous artist as a studio assistant, and he couldn’t make his own work for about a year while working under him, but now has saved enough money to not work for him, afford his own studio, and works like a genius artist/madman daily. Anyways, I guess my point is, I think that you’re gonna make art because you want to. no matter what job you have, no matter if you live in a shoebox apartment in NY, or teach at a college in the midwest. Or go out into the snow to paint landscapes with baked potatoes in your pockets to keep your hands warm. You’re just gonna do it, cause you have to. (This is a good poem that pretty much sums up the opinion I’ve made on that whole matter: http://airlighttimespace.com/)
The second thing I think is interesting is how you touched on art not being as cared about by the general public. I’ve often wondered why talk shows constantly feature actors and musicians, but never feature actual interviews with working artists. (The only thing I’ve seen recently is on The Colbert Report, when they featured Shepard Fairey, Frank Stella, and Andres Serrano, and they weren’t exactly interviewed). The only obvious answer I can think of, is that it’s like Pop music versus obscure music. The masses don’t understand it unless it’s spelled out to them, or flashy/catchy and easily digestible. But even with that, people will, you’re right, go out of their way to find music that they relate to/like, but rarely seek out working artists. It’s troublesome. I have no solution or answer. Just wanted to expound on what you said on the subject, because it’s always bothered me. Art has such a broad visual vocabulary, and has so many relatable/genius contributions over hundreds of years. Why doesn’t the general public have more interest in it?
Anyways, sorry to ramble. I’m going to have to order this book! The Shape of Content section in particular sounds like a good read. Thanks so much for sharing!
Great comment Sarah.
Is that your domain with the Bukoski poem?
I agree that if you have a true desire to create you will, however you need to. I think it comes down to why you’re making art, as you said, it’s what you do, but for some, I think what they’re really doing in art school is just getting grades. Seems a lot of people never break out of the school system mentality that you go to class, any class, to get a grade, win approval, get money, buy big things, ect; the stuff you’re learning or doing is just the means to the end, the grade is the goal.
Your second point, that’s the big one… and a part of my motivation for creating this site. I don’t know quite what the problem is either, or what will fix it, but I’d like to think that the utility of the internet to display art in a comfortable, easily accessible way is going to change the general public’s relation to the arts.
I’ve been meaning to email Ted Orland, the Author of Art and Fear and the View, about his thoughts on the internet and how it may change the art world. I have my personal experience, trying to get friends to come to openings and the like… rarely works, and I think, most of the time, people are intimidated somehow, and I can understand it, even if it’s annoying. I’m hoping that if more, quality, spots of art appear on the internet that the public will have an easier way of being introduced to art.
Plenty of books talk about the rather small nature of the high end art world. Only so many galleries out there that can actually “launch” a career, and only so many buyers out there that can support so many artists. But what’s worse about that to me is that the system that chooses who “succeeds” and who doesn’t is so small, and so far removed from the public… well it’s not surprising that the public doesn’t know, doesn’t care, and generally assumes the worst. Fine Art has been purposely catering to the super rich for 1000′s of years, why should any of the rest of us care?
I like this romantic dream that the internet will give artists and the public alike a way to skip the whole “Fine Art Industrial Complex” and allow us to decide what’s good and what isn’t, directly, together. Shahn hits upon it… that the public has been pandered to, and their knowledge and taste has been corrupted systematically… I’d like to think that a site like AAT can help with this, at least by pooling together a certain level of quality has to give viewers a clue. The kind of clue that a site like etsy can’t give because of its size and open door policy.
Fairey was on the Rollins show as well, and he spoke about commercialism and took a swipe at working in a restaurant and “keeping it real” or whatever. He explained doing big budget movie posters by saying that he “believed” in the project and so forth, but wouldn’t work for nike because he didn’t like their business practices… all all rang a bit hollow to me. I think he’s reached a level of celebrity where the rules of normal reality just don’t apply. To me, he’s making money, and good for him, just admit it already…
I think one of the big reasons why music and movies are so much more popular then Fine Art is a simple one: they have an affordable product to sell. Both can also be digital products that fly across the globe in seconds, we don’t have that to offer.
But, if we did have a quality “entertainment website” with a steady stream of new content, with contests and free art, things that made it accessible and interactive to all, then I think we would have something viable to promote along with all the rest.
Way to take the bull by the horns, Chad! The internet has certainly changed the game in every way, for everyone.
I remember reading the Van Gogh comment years ago and thinking then, as I do now, that no one necessarily wants a shoemaker to stop by for tea either. We’re asking people to take note, but of what? To value something, but what? I hope and assume it’s the work, but maybe because we so often work alone, craving feedback, art and maker get tangled. Art may not be a product in the sense of shoes, but visual artists do make something that goes on to live its own separate life in the world, and we want people to take note of and (yes: say it) buy that something. Talk shows are a performance, so it makes sense that they’d focus on performers, who are their own “sell.”
Product. Supply. Demand. I know this is ugly language, but the sad truth is that no one wanted a Van Gogh in his day. He couldn’t give his paintings away. With his model in mind you could argue that art is held to a standard of longevity and dogged collectibility that assures most artists obscurity–or at least poverty– in their lifetimes. But that seems defeatist to me.
If artists succeed, I have to believe it’s for the same reasons anyone else does; because they develop their skills, work hard, stay flexible, and know how to market well or find someone to market well on their behalf. I hate to use the M word, but that’s the world we live in. Many artists I know revile marketing, and there’s a correlation there, especially in a world so inundated with competing visual stimuli.
The best way to promote art (or independent bookstores… or local farmers…) to buy, keep the makers in business. But in the end, as Sarah says, there’s pop music and there’s indie music. There’s high-paying establishment/corporate art and there’s starving-in-your-garret art. It really comes down to how you view success and what gets you out of bed in the morning with your synapses firing.
I’m a long way from graduation, never formally studied, and have always had to keep a so-called “real” job to support the writing and photography habits so may not be qualified to weigh in here except to agree with Sarah that if you want to do it, you find a way.
Among other things, art makes you think. Unlike shoes (I picked up the shoe metaphor from Annie Dillard’s great book, The Writing Life, by the way), people don’t NEED to think. They don’t NEED another book or painting or photograph. Those who think want to, choose to, and because it’s optional there will always be fewer than more. I guess our job is to find them. Or make sure they find us?
Great points Deb. I recognized the Van Gogh comment as soon as I read it as well.
Sarah: you’re in NYC correct? would you be willing to go on the Colbert Report? I’ll send a letter, see if I can get them interested? haha half joking but… hey..
But you’re right Deb, artists are not on camera performers like the others, even a lot of the musicians you see on talk shows are pretty awkward and weird.
I think Shahn is actually making a case for marketing, just not in the way we think of it typically. A distinction between the beer commercial that sells some kind of unbelievable fantasy and the “hey I made some art, come check it out, you might enjoy it” needs to be made.
I’ve thought about the future possibility of advertising on the site, and how we could do it well and even be proud of it. Obviously we are all interested in promoting our work and making a living with it if possible, those interests are not at odds here.
What if we only included advertising for art related things, and what if we made the ads ourselves? I’m thinking of an art supplier like Dick Blick, I’ve used them for years, and if AAT made the graphic it wouldn’t have to look out of place or ugly. “Advertising made by and proudly endorsed by AAT.”
I do believe that it is part of an artists job to either find them, or at least help them find us. Hopefully we can make some progress with that here.