The Silence
Thursday, June 19, 2008
There is a general dearth of responsiveness in the local art world which is disconcerting to the art writer. Michael Smith mentioned recently that his "short cuts", the introduction to the website of cheeky snapshots of shows in Gauteng received no response in the feedback section of Artthrob this month. The same is true of Artheat, the most volatile and popular forum for discussion on the web- generally the quality of response is so trite and superficial it's not even worth reading. As writers we visit art events, exhibitions, speak to practitioners think, a lot about what is happening, write and receive, generally no feedback. How, as a writer do you take that massive silence that faces what you do? It seems to me that the only spaces where there is some kind of dialogue are those that are sanctioned and usually where there is a strong sense of framing you don't have responsiveness but rather the illusion of it- proceduralism. I would like to know why there is so little consistent, improvised, organic responsiveness in the local art scene? Spaces exist where readers can respond to what they encounter and yet there is nothing. Why is this? Is this a case that everything is just spectacle to consume and nothing a writer can produce will generate a response?
Brenden GrayOf course, it would be silly not to respond to a post like that, so I said the following back:
I think a good way to garner a response is to ask a specific question, as you are doing now. On the other hand, I'm not sure receiving concrete feedback is essential to my work as a writer. The 'silence' I think is a myth. People often respond to what they have read by talking. Verbal discussions are easy, consistent, and organic. I know I have spoken about stuff you have written, without feeling the need to respond to you. For me that is enough to make the writing something other than a spectacle.
If however, written responses are important, I wander if as writers we are giving the audience a space to respond... are we talking about things that merit a response?
And his response:
Thanks for the posting on Dis concert, Robert. I know what you mean by an organic, kind of on-the-ground response, but why does it remain in those informal spaces? With the new blog format, there really is an opportunity for some engaged fluid discussion which I believe does happen on the pavement outside exhibition openings, in the car on the way home, over the photocopy machine in Fine Art departments. What I am interested in is eliciting this talk and using writing as a catalyst for this. Not going out to provoke infantile, knee jerk reactions which is so often the case when you open up the forums. I want to start developing topics and contacting specific people to contribute to the blog around contentious and difficult questions in the visual arts and hope that goes somewhere in terms of creating the spaces you talk of. So what do you say about my writing? I am very interested to know. I would also like to know how we can construct more responsive and critical spaces to readers to dialogue. Brenden
Brenden GrayI've got a whole host of deadlines so I'll stop there, but you can expect some more thoughts on this later in the week. But what do you think? What role should a writer play?
Labels: Brenden Gray
posted by Robert Sloon at 4:35 PM
9 Comments:
Why do critics crave constant feedback? To convince themselves that they're not douche bags after all? To feed their decrepit egos, in the make-believe that some human filament occupies their husks?
Brenden Grey has written some of the most viscious, insensitive and easy 'criticism' in the last couple of months, and now he wonders why no-one wants to hang out in blog-o-land to chit chat about his putrid opinions?
It's a lonely, ungratefull job if you are a lonely, ungratefull doos doing it.
The 'scene' is so small, the 'critic's' focus smaller still, it all becomes a bit like whispering about a the shadow of a mouse. Never the less we persevere.
The blog format and it's instantaneity and informality is designed for knee jerk responses and unruly stuff, that's what makes artheat feel alive and energised. Also blogs are not necessarily the space for engaged semi-academic debate, a journal may be better served for the kind of purpose. It may just be a bit of wishful thinking on the part of Gray to expect that.
Never mind the critic, spare a thought for the artists and the deafening silence they encounter, when they are not merely 'think(ing) a lot about what's happening' but being the engine for what happens. And there is scant dialogue space for them, even in the art press, if they are not part of the establishment.
Well it may be 'trite and superficial' and 'not even worth reading.' But at least it will echo in that empty space that Gray complains about.
Grey might get one or two more comments if you didn't have to log in on his 'blog' to make comments, elementary. But they are quite a nag about this see below taken from thier site,
Post a Comment
Please log in to post your comment.
If you are not already registered on the Art South Africa web site or that of its publisher Bell-Roberts Publishing, please click here to join as only members may post comments. Registration is simple, fast and free.
Other than artheat, the art press is in general governed by censorship and surveillance. One's verifiable identity is mandatory, presumably because this would cut out mindless sniping. The problem is that mindlessness is not confined to sniping. Given the dim wits of many of this nation's art critics it is not a comforting thought to imagine one's opinions being quoted by them. Therefore if one has a career to look after in this little cesspool it's safer to confine one's off-the-top-of-the-head opinions to anonymous blogging.
So destructive to glibly wave away 'many of this nation's art critics'... In an 'industry' where pro bono is more the rule than the exception, there are many, many people working as critics for little or no money who are doing good work.
Furthermore, your rationale for anonymity is sketchy: how do we expect to raise the level of criticism and accountability (the lack of which you seem to bemoan) if we all continue to indulge this 'Hackers'-inspired techie-guerilla fantasy of anonymity.
BTW, this is Michael Smith: my post will be attributed to 'anonymous' because I couldn't be fucking bothered with trying to remember the password I registered under...
anon 10.09
I am really serious about anonymity and I'm not being sketchy. This country is a very difficult place and the issues are very sensitive. Yes, one can log on under one's own name and write all the politically correct stuff you are supposed to say, but it is so predictable and it does nothing to move things forward.
Also many people in this scene are young, and as far as I'm concerned they should be able to ask questions without being exposed in public. When you write stuff online you can never, ever get away from it or move on. It's extremely compromising.
Okay. You've argued it well, especially the aspect of age.
But I've made mistakes writing online, and have lived to tell the tale, so I'm not convinced that perpetually remaining anonymous is the answer.
I also take your point about the size of the sa scene: it can be a bit like a 'little cesspool', as you called it.
Michael
This conversation is a perfect example. It's uneccessary to know who anyone is in order to have this conversation, and I'm damn sure there would be much less commentary if you had to identify yourself.
perhaps the fact that the internet connect elect in south africa is so small has something to do with it.
the mere f.act of participating in a forum like this is elecrically charged by what it is not.. its antithesis: outsider artists with bright ideas and artistic creations living in technologically deprived conditions who nevermind not being responded to, are not even being heard.
Perhaps the strange smell of a group of predominantly white rich kids (rich because hey they have access to the internet and carry academic punch) chatting to each other is a bit offputting. Chatting to each other and the rest of the world - europe and america primarily to whom it SEEMS their writing is obliquely addressed... this would seem to carry a kind of - hey look at us, we can do it too! element. so that is maybe also an element contributing to the self loathing going on.
the infantile kneejerk responses are interesting because they are gut reactions possibly to the things i mentioned above - without the kneejerkers being aware of just what it is that is so offputting about this whole scene. There are a lot of unaware people. and bitter people. angry unaware bitter people. to whom this must seem hugely irrelevant - because it highlights their own privilege and hence complicitousness and guilt and so on. Art can be profoundly threatening to many people. Far from admiring the erudition, sincerity and charm of the contributors, many people probably react in the opposite vein, which probably ought to be taken as a compliment since it seems to be a freudian reaction formation. Speaking of freud, incestuousness is after all a universal human taboo despite the trendy euro philosophers who wipe out all universals while being blind to the fact that they are attempting to install their own little universal into our minds. fuck that!
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home