Response to Glitch Art; C.H. Stern
Something the art world has contended with for decades (perhaps even centuries) is the idea of legitimacy. Not only is there some sort of standard for skills within the fine arts — there are also forms a piece, genre, or even artist, “should” take. The messaging is so constant and self-legitimizing that even people who may not necessarily have opinions on art (Opinions On Art, formal, capitalized, “legitimate”) will see oil painting as much more serious than something like glitch art, or found art, or something like performance art in the vein of Marina Abromović. Glitch art confronts and tangles with the highly political idea of legitimacy. Glitch art is “wrong” and violates Terms Of Service. Glitch art can be accessed and created for free. Glitch art is disruptive. I see it as no different than Yoko Ono’s body of work, or Banksy’s. We/“We” only respect these two artists now that MoMA and the like have legitimized them. (Marina, too.) There’s something deviant and queer about glitch art *because of* its accessibility to all economic classes, and its alignment, broadly speaking, with The Other/L’Autre. Feminized, racialized, queer, sexual, illegal. It’s not entirely unlike to my approach to being a “professional” photographer. I decided to be one, so I am. Legitimacy doesn’t exist. Whiteness, money/poverty, maleness, gatekeeping, and systemic violence do.
So much energy behind these sentences, Charlie, nicely framed. Maybe the starting threads of a thesis someday? I completely agree with your assessment of the question of legitimacy. The impetus for art making, at its core, seems to require, or at least is born from, a craving to challenge conventionality. As Abromović picked up the newly consumer available video camera to confront her viewers with her performances, so do artists today dig into the weeds of digital media to find and probe its boundaries. Great points also about the establishment Art World's inevitable co-option of these creative impulses throughout history—important in the ever-present debate about the "job" of the artist...
ReplyDelete