I like how you're interested in current artists, when I'm sure so many of your peers probably prefer to talk about dead artists, right?
It's true that a major portion of art historians prefer to research work from what I call pre-modernism (from antiquity, the Renaissance, and Neo-Classicism, etc), but it really great to see that the art history field is expanding to include Modern and Contemporary, Asian, African Diaspora, Islamic and Latin American art.
However, yes, I think you are right in stating that most historians prefer to research 'dead artists', and I think that is linked to two major issues:
(1) the general population prefers this work, they have a hard time understanding/relating to modern art.
(2) There is a strange terminology problem when you begin researching contemporary artists- am I an art historian or an art critic? Because of that, I think art historians who are purely interested in the historical side of art history tend to lean towards researching artists that have long been dead. (Its interesting to test this theory when you look at different major university art history programs- I can tell if the department is based on studying the classics by seeing if they call their department Art History or History of Art---obviously this is never 100% true)
How do you see yourself as compared with other art historians?
I don't really compare myself to other art historians. I didn't attend any academic programs where there are 20-30 other art historians (at my level) just sitting around chatting, so I never felt a competition to size myself up. And, when I do attend lectures and conferences I am either there as a student, in which case I am in awe of the other art historians and trying to learn, or as a lecturer, and I am too focused on my presentation to compare myself. I think the most important thing for me is that I succeed at making my path, and that is going to be completely different that another art historian as I don't really define myself in that way.
With the lines that divide fine art, design, and craft now blurring, it's becoming evident that visual art is assuming a special and progressive role in the 21st century. But what role do you see contemporary artists (working in 2010) having?
I think contemporary artists have a pretty daunting task, because interest in supporting the arts through government institutions is waning and that is not good, especially in the United States. As funds go out the window, artists are pressured (both internally and externally) to create work that is both economical but also reignites public interest in supporting the arts. It's also the task of people like me to make the general population realize that lack of support in the arts will draw us back into a cultural 'Dark Age' and thats just not an option in 2010 or at anytime.
What impact artists they make this century and how will that differ from past centuries?
Well, based on following trends and personal research I have done, I think artists are reverting to older habits. For decades the major relationship has been between the isolated artist and the gallery. I think due to economic and social events artists are returning to a time when the artists collective and community worked as a united force. And the likelihood of success is pretty high because of the low or no-cost dissimilation of ideas via technology.
As an art historian, you've come in contact with so many art movements, eras, phases, trends--- what have you. Some of these may be enormously vital, some not. Which "movement" do you think we could have done without?
Ugh, I really don't like this question. Its hard because I can't just ignore the efforts of a group of people from a different time, since I have no first-hand knowledge of how this work affected the community. And as a historian its my job to view all the facts as they are presented, working from that.
Having said that, if I had to answer the question, I would probably say that I would wipe the term Degenerate Art or entartete Kunst out of the history books. The fact that Hitler and the Nazis were able to discount (and rename) the achievements of basically every Modern artist for their own gain, and that this term still exists is awful.
What is your favorite cartoon from 1980-1990?
Cartoon is a pretty comprehensive term. I will say that the cartoons I remember wanting to watch the most as a little Sicilian stuck in Dallas, Texas were some of the old Italian VHS tapes my parents brought over when we moved in the early 1990s. I especially liked watching a series called Esplorando Il Corpo Umano (Exploring the Human Body). I think these videos were my parents fun way of educating us on the functions of the human body, but also retaining some Italian language influences. Also, they succeeded in making us comfortable talking about and seeing images of human anatomy. I still remember the episode on cavities and their way of describing DNA, muscles, and the nervous system.
What's your dream job....and where?
Right now, I want to be a cog in an art collective/art space that unites artists from the Americas...in Dallas.
I think contemporary artists have a pretty daunting task, because interest in supporting the arts through government institutions is waning and that is not good, especially in the United States. As funds go out the window, artists are pressured (both internally and externally) to create work that is both economical but also reignites public interest in supporting the arts. It's also the task of people like me to make the general population realize that lack of support in the arts will draw us back into a cultural 'Dark Age' and thats just not an option in 2010 or at anytime.
What impact artists they make this century and how will that differ from past centuries?
Well, based on following trends and personal research I have done, I think artists are reverting to older habits. For decades the major relationship has been between the isolated artist and the gallery. I think due to economic and social events artists are returning to a time when the artists collective and community worked as a united force. And the likelihood of success is pretty high because of the low or no-cost dissimilation of ideas via technology.
As an art historian, you've come in contact with so many art movements, eras, phases, trends--- what have you. Some of these may be enormously vital, some not. Which "movement" do you think we could have done without?
Ugh, I really don't like this question. Its hard because I can't just ignore the efforts of a group of people from a different time, since I have no first-hand knowledge of how this work affected the community. And as a historian its my job to view all the facts as they are presented, working from that.
Having said that, if I had to answer the question, I would probably say that I would wipe the term Degenerate Art or entartete Kunst out of the history books. The fact that Hitler and the Nazis were able to discount (and rename) the achievements of basically every Modern artist for their own gain, and that this term still exists is awful.
What is your favorite cartoon from 1980-1990?
Cartoon is a pretty comprehensive term. I will say that the cartoons I remember wanting to watch the most as a little Sicilian stuck in Dallas, Texas were some of the old Italian VHS tapes my parents brought over when we moved in the early 1990s. I especially liked watching a series called Esplorando Il Corpo Umano (Exploring the Human Body). I think these videos were my parents fun way of educating us on the functions of the human body, but also retaining some Italian language influences. Also, they succeeded in making us comfortable talking about and seeing images of human anatomy. I still remember the episode on cavities and their way of describing DNA, muscles, and the nervous system.
What's your dream job....and where?
Right now, I want to be a cog in an art collective/art space that unites artists from the Americas...in Dallas.
No comments:
Post a Comment
"Art is less important than life but what a poor life without it."
Robert Motherwell