The origins of 'postmodernism'

The first use of the term "postmodernism" is before 1926, and extends to the 1870s, when it was used by the British artist John Watkins Chapman, and 1917 when used by Rudolf Pannwitz. "Post-Impressionism" (1880s) and "post-industrial" (1914-22) were the beginning of the "posties", which bloomed intermittently in the early 1960s in literature, social thought, economics and even religion - "post-Christianity". Posteriority, the negative feeling of coming after a creative age or, conversely, the positive feeling of transcending a negative ideology, really develops in the 1970s, in architecture and literature, two centers of the postmodern debate (hyphenated half the time to indicate autonomy and a positive, constructive movement). Deconstructive postmodernism came about after the French post-structualists - Lyotard, Derrida, Baudrillard - became accepted in the United States in the late 1970s, and now half the academic world believes postmodernism is confined to negative dialects and deconstruction. But in the 1980s a series of new, creative movements occurred, variously called "constructive", "ecological", "grounded", and "reconstructive" post-modernism. 

It is clear that two basic movements exist, as well as "the postmodern condition", "reactionary postmodernism" and "consumer postmodernism"; for example, the information age, the Pope, Madonna,. If one wants an impartial, scholarly guide to all this, Margaret Rose's The Post-Modern and the Post-Industrial: A critical analysis, 1991, serves very well. 

I should add that one of the great strengths of the word, and the concept, and why it will be around for another hundred years, is that it is carefully suggestive about our having gone beyond the world-view of modernism - which is clearly inadequate - without specifying where we are going. That is why most people will spontaneously use it, as if for the first time. But since "Modernism" was coined apparently in the Third Century, perhaps its first use was then. 

The Artist's Dilemma

What is the popular conception of the artist? Gathering a thousand descriptions, and the resulting composite is the portrait of a moron: he is held to be childish, irresponsible, and ignorant or stupid in everyday affairs.
The picture does not necessarily involve censure or unkindness. These deficiencies are attributed to the intensity of the artist's preoccupation with his/her particular kind of fantasy and to the unworldly nature of the fantastic itself. The bantering tolerance granted to the absentminded professor is extended to the artist. Biographers contrast the artlessness of his/her judgments with the high attainment of his/her art, and while his/her naivety or rascality are gossiped about, they are viewed as signs of Simplicity and Inspiration, which are the Handmaidens of Art. And if the artist is inarticulate and lacking in the usual repositories of fact and information, how fortunate, it is said, that nature has contrived to divert from him/her all worldly distractions so he/she may be single-minded in regards to the their special office.

The myth, like all myths, has many reasonable foundations. First, it attests to the common belief in the laws of compensation: that one sense will gain in sensitivity by the deficiency in another. Homer was blind, Beethoven was deaf. Too bad for them, but fortunate for us in the increased vividness of their art. But more importantly it attests to the persistent belief in the irrational quality of inspiration, finding between the innocence of childhood and the derangements of madness that true insight which is not accorded to normal man. When thinking of the artist, the world still adheres to Plato's view, expressed in Ion in reference to the poet: "There is no invention in him until he has been inspired and is out of his senses, and the mind is no longer in him." Although science, with scales and a yardstick, daily threatens to tear mystery from the imagination, the persistence of this myth is the inadvertent homage which we pay to the penetration of the artist's inner being as it is differentiated from his/her reasonable experience.

Strange, but the artist has never made a fuss about being denied those estimable virtues others would not do without: intellectuality, good judgment, a knowledge of the world, and rational conduct. It may be charged that he/she has even fostered the myth.

Most societies of the past have insisted that their own particular evaluations of truth and morality be depicted by the artist. Accordingly, the Egyptian artist had to produce a definitely prescribed prototype; the Christian artist had to abide by the tenets of the Second Council of Nicea or be anathematized or, like the monk of the iconoclast age, work in danger and by stealth. We should note that Michelangelo's nudes were forced to wear, in the end, the appropriate drapery. Authority formulation rules, and the artist complied. We should not speak here of those whose daring periodically revitalized art. saving it from its narcissistic mimicry of itself. We can accurately say that, within these periods, the artist had to submit to these rules or simulate the appearance of submission, if he were to be permitted to practice his art.

The artist's lot is the same today, that the market, through its denial or affording of the means of sustenance, exerts the same compulsion. Yet there is this vital difference: the civilizations enumerated above had the temporal and spiritual power to summarily enforce their demands. The Fires of Hell, exile, and, in the background, the rack and stake, were correctives if persuasion failed. Today the compulsion is Hunger, and the experience of the last four hundred years has shown us that hunger is not nearly as compelling as the imminence of Hell and Death. Since the passing of the spiritual and temporal patron, the history of art is the history of men  who, for the most part, have preferred hunger to compliance, and who have considered the choice worth-while. And choice it is, for all the tragic disparity between the two alternatives.

What abetted the artists in their little game was the dogmatic unity of their civilization. For all dogmatic societies have this in common: they know what they want. Whatever the contentions behind the scenes, society is allowed only one Official Truth. The demands made upon the artist issued from a single source, and the specifications for art were definite and unmistakable. That, at least, was something; whether submission or deceit were intended, one master is better than ten, and it is better to know the size and shape of the hand that holds the whip.
Today instead of once voice we have dozens issuing demands. There is no longer one truth, no single authority - instead there is a score of would-be-masters who would usurp their place. All are fill of histories, statistics, proofs, demonstrations, facts, and quotations. First they plead and exhort, and finally they resort to intimidation by threats and moral imprecations. Each pulls the artist this way and that, telling them what he/she must do if he/she is to have a full belly and a saved soul.

For the artist, now, there can be neither compliance nor circumvention. It is the misfortune of free conscience that it cannot be neglectful of means in the pursuit of ends. Ironically enough, compliance would not help, for even the artist should to subvert this conscience, where could they find the peace in this Babel? To please one it to antagonize the others. And what security is there in any of these wrangling contenders?

The ancient truths of India, Egypt, Greece spanned over centuries. In matters of art our society has substituted taste for truth - which changes tastes as frequently as night and day. And here might the artist, placed between choice and diversity, raise his/her lamentations louder. Never did his/her protestors or masters have as many shapes or such a jabbering of voices, and never did they exude such a prolixity of matter.

Art & Criticism

If you refer to one of my previous posts, "The seven types of art market players", I talked about the role of the art critic in today's society. They aren't as sought after for their opinions like they used to be. 

Since the 1990s, critics have believed their role in shaping the art consensus has been devalued by the art world. You can find art reviews, exhibition reviews, and reviews on the art market on the web in a thousand opinionated blogs, journals, books, and online newspapers written by writers - writers who probably didn't go to SVA for theory and criticism. All I can say is art critics aren't the only positions being devalued or manipulated through these sources of information. 

Critics are the "whistleblowers" of the art world. They should investigate the art industry's values, infrastructure, and practices - if they didn't who would? Art is subjective to the viewer, but who tells the viewer what to look at? Who tells the viewer or the collector what they are viewing or buying into is a huge mistake, or time and money well spent? If you were willing to spend millions of dollars at a restaurant, would you not read the review on the chef or the service or the wine list? 

THE MARKET

John Coplans and Max Kozloff sought to turn ArtForum into an anti-market publication in 1971. They wanted to expose the way in which investments and money in art was becoming harmful to the art world. Coplans, in fact, attacked a group of collectors who were treating the art they were buying like stocks and bonds - who were museum trustees and curating shows. Galleries refused to advertise in ArtForum if they didn't feature their artists. They wanted to control criticism and eventually Copland was fired. 

PLURALISM 

Aside from the art market, there's another reason why critics have lost most of their influence. 

The growth of pluralism in the postmodernist era. During the Modernist period, critics took sides for or against avant-garde art such as Color Field or gestural paintings, assemblage, pop, minimal, earth, conceptual and so on. They debated against movements and ideas and their opinions were demanded by the art world. In the postmodernist period, critics were reduced to picking one artist at a time, like or dislike, and focus on them individually. Debating in the art world has become unfocused and undramatic, and some might say irrelevant.

Questions for today's art critics:

1. What should art criticism be doing?
2. What are the issues or polemics, if any, for art criticism?
3. Is there a crisis in criticism?
4. Has art criticism been marginalized in the art world consensus? Is it influential in terms of what readers think and do?
5. Who and what is an art critic?
6. How would you define yourself as a critic? Reviewer? Essayist? Theorist? Artist-critic? Blogger?
7. For what audience do you write?
8. Has the Internet been good or bad for art criticism? Does it raise the issue of elitism versus populism?
9. How do you deal with the proliferating mediums in the art world today? 
10. How has globalization of art and the art world changed art criticism?
11. How has the enormous growth of the art world changed art criticism?
12. How do art magazine policies affect art criticism?
13. Are gender-based and political issues still viable in art criticism today?
14. Is it a function of art criticism to analyze art world institutions?

Abstract inquiries

                                          Franz Kline, Mahoning, 1956

What triggered the invention of "Abstract Art"?

In view of a long history of visual representation - what caused some artists in the early 20th century to abandon it entirely?

THREE INFLUENTIAL EARLY MODERNISTS

• Wassily Kandinsky 
• Kazimir Malevich 
• Piet Mondrian 

These three left extensive treatises to rationalize their views:

- The abstract pioneers were motivated by extreme , if arguably mistaken, assumptions - not only about the nature of art but also about human nature -- They believed art belonged to a higher spirituality - one that is completely detached from life -- This could only be represented by work in which no objects were depicted or recognizable -- These inventors of "nonobjective art" expected that their work would help humanity attain the higher plane of reality they imagined.

What do ordinary people think of such work?
Despite the abstractionists' inventions, their work is incomprehensible to the viewer who has not yet evolved "beyond reason". We cannot begin to guess their intended meaning just from looking at their work - only through their artist statements can we comprehend lines, shape, and their "highly-evolved" way of thinking.
To the ordinary viewer, a typical Mondrian "composition" conveys no meaning.
Composition II in Red, Blue, and Yellow

Some abstractionists who represented patterned shapes and colors, like Mondrian, ended up having their nonobjective art work mass produced - hand towels, wallpaper, and high fashion. If they were alive to see the direction their art went they would be pissed. 

The risk all abstract artists take is having their work turn into something merely decorative. 

I like abstract art on some levels, but I can't help getting flashes of Architecture Digest magazine covers. 

How did these Modernists misread the human mind?

Using what we know about the mind through science exploration, it isn't hard to believe that such paintings failed to communicated their maker's intentions. What we understand of our world and our emotions greatly depend on our direct, sensory contact with our physical reality. Sight is our most important sense - so this sensory contact is geared toward recognizing people, places, and things that impact our survival and well-being. 

Modernists didn't keep this important facility in mind. Although they preached the rejection of material objects, they nevertheless attempted to represent spirit in material form. They sought to make their images intelligible by trying to break the connection between visual art and the everyday life experience. 

The art critic, Clive Bell, once said,

"To appreciate a work of art, we need to bring with us nothing from life, no knowledge of its ideas and affairs, no familiarity with its emotions."

Cognitive science proves Bell's reasoning to be faulty. Studies have demonstrated that images activate the same areas of the brain that relate to real-life experiences. Our understanding and appreciation of art is directly connected to our life experiences. Furthermore, studies show that our higher cognition functions are not activated by abstract patterns like Mondrian's. Clement Greenberg, another art critic, said that "advanced art" - referring to abstract art - was "something to be avoided like the plague." His mistake was ignoring the spiritual aims of the artists who invented abstraction in the first place. Regardless, he did a lot more to persuade the cultural community that the work of abstract expressionists, like Pollock, were major artistic achievements.
Michelle Marder

How not to approach a gallery

Lets face it, you are going to be rejected once if not a hundred times by galleries, small art venues, and even art fairs. With all of the advice floating around about how to approach a gallery you could be pushed and pulled a lot more for a lot longer if you're getting the wrong advice. I want to focus on what you shouldn't do when you introduce yourself to your gallery of choice.

The thing that comes to mind every time I think of artists sending their CVs out is a clip from one of my favorite tv shows, Arrested Development. This clip shows one of Tobias' attempts to nail an acting job...

(I couldn't find the clip so this will have to do)

Tobias Fünke: So fill each one of these bags with some glitter, my photo resume, some candy, and a note.

Mae 'Maebe' Funke: "I know where you live, ha ha!" Casting directors hate this!

Narrator: They really do.

Casting Director: [cut to casting director's office] The glitter queen struck again. Never hire Tobias Funke....

I hope for your sake that you haven't gone to extreme lengths - regardless how "creative" you think you are being. If you're gonna go all out you better make damn sure it blows people out of the water. If this is the case then you probably don't need any of this advice.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Sending an Email or Letter?

A Westchester dealer says, "I am not to whom it may concern. If you don't know whom to address, you haven't done your homework." 

"Sir or Madam" salutation needs to be retired, too. There's nothing more off-putting than being addressed as "Dear Sir" if you're not a sir. I am a woman, and my name is Dylan. This has happened to me many many times. Good thing I am not in a position where I held the future of your art career in my hands - depending on the morning I'm having I might not be too forgiving. 

Sending a Package?

First make sure the gallery is accepting physical packages. Many don't want to deal with the administrative responsibilities and will tell you they prefer electronic submissions. 

If the contents peak their interest they will get back to you. 

I attended a Studio Visits lecture at the Dallas Contemporary a couple years back. The Director Peter Doroshenko had a lot to say on the matter. He is very proactive and likes that artists take the initiative to send him resumes or packages. But he also said that most galleries and museums like to visit the artist's studio. Even when a collector contacts a museum to donate or loan pieces the curator needs to see the collection before making a decision. Pictures don't always cut it. 

When it comes to the pictures you send, in either a package or electronically, make sure the quality of those photos are top notch. These galleries know you are probably poor and struggling to find work, and they expect that, but they also consider this as a job interview. You may not be there personally to hand over your work dressed in a suit or tie, but your packaging or electronic portfolio needs to act as an indication of your professionalism. 

Visiting the Gallery? Don't Interrupt 

I was talking to this art consultant in New York - we were sitting the gallery proper, and an artist came in with a portfolio. She was hovering even though she was in the background. She was waiting for a break in the conversation, and when it didn't come quickly enough for her, she cleared her throat and said to the dealer, "Hey, I'm here to show my work. Are you the dealer?" 

"Did we have an appointment today?" 

"No, but you said you'd be willing to look at my work."

"I am willing to look at your work, but you need to make an appointment."

"But I'm here now."

"But I'm busy."

"You're just talking," she persisted, holding her ground.

"Yes, I sure am."

It was literally the most awkward situation I have ever been in, and I wasn't even a part of the conversation. The artist eventually turned her heel and left.  

Don't Waste the Dealer's Time

Hundreds of galleries face this issue on a regular basis. Do your homework, peeps. Make sure you know the gallery's name, and again, the gallerist's name. Make sure your work is appropriate or you will be wasting your time as well as the dealer's. Granted, I know its hard to research galleries, especially out-of-state galleries. Their websites are usually minimalistic and vague. That's their appeal. 

There is a book I bought a couple years ago when I was still interested in becoming an artist. They come out with annual artist market listings and tips to get your stuff out in the art world. Super useful. 

2013 Artist's and Graphic Designer's Market - check it out. It lists almost every known gallery from all over the world. Even the successful small galleries if its the first time showing your work. 

I WILL NOT MAKE BORING ART

I absolutely love this video. Not only because Tom Waits is the narrator, but because John Baldessari reminds me of one of my professors I had in school. My professor's art is nothing like Baldessari - he's just as big n' tall, bearded, gentle, and crazy.

John Baldessari 

Mark Davis 

Told you...

The seven types of art market players

THE ARTIST

Any buyer interested in collecting a certain artist's work will tell you they prefer to meet the artist. I don't believe it does any good. After all, the work is what buyers are after. The work must speak for itself; the object must communicate that blissful liberation that ever masterpiece conveys. Whether the artist is polite, polished, or tortured, after the cocktails are over, you are living with the purchase you made, not the artist...Kinda sounds like an Abstinence program.
Note to the artist:
The dreaded words "My new work is going to be my best". The artist must have faith in order to continue to develop his or her personal vision, but you don't, and neither does the art market. A piece of advice I could give to an artist is be absolutely confident in your work and have a clear direction for your future work (granted its always relative to change) before you try to make your debut. Once you've graced the art world with your presence by jumping the gun too early - your future work will not be taken seriously.

THE ART CRITIC

It is a challenge to understand why these sophisticated people no longer influence the prices of art in the marketplace. In the Forties, Fifties, and early Sixties, a review by the great (and despised) Clement Greenberg could make or break an artist's show; today, no critic has that power. Reading art criticism is like reading Rotten Tomatoes. Yes, people read those reviews, but if the movie got a bad rating people will still go see it. Even though art critics may seem outdated and unnecessary this information will ultimately save you money - they're experts for a reason. They highlight market hype and derivative copycatting, and potentially alerting you to work that is passe.
The influence of Clement Greenberg has possibly affected the work of artists today. If it wasn't for Greenberg following Pollock throughout his career - whose reviews put Pollock's success in writing (initially there was no art market during his time - not many people knew or cared about up and coming artists), Pollock's work wouldn't have influenced future artists.

THE ART DEALER

These cats are fascinating people. With egos that are even bigger than some of the artists they represent, art dealers, the good ones, have a gift. It takes balls to open up a pricey retail store that sell things that nobody needs and that nobody wants to buy. Collectors need art dealers. Whether you are a well-known, self-made successful collector at some point in the years you've been collecting you have crossed paths, sought advice, and even used their services to buy that ultimate painting at the ultimate price. Just keep in mind - most dealers will offer a 10% discount on any primary work, so if you like to negotiate, remember, 15% is the maximum you can realistically expect - but on secondary material, prices should be much more negotiable; the dealer is seeing what he/she can get out of it, so make an offer and wait. Dealers need their relationships in order to keep a good name and gain more clients - so scamming you is not their idea of a good business deal. Results will vary - some may be disappointing - but, note, the success of this deal is just as important to them as it is to you.
Here are a list of prominent dealers:

Marianne Boesky - MB has built one hell of a programme over the last ten years. Her major representation that put her on the map was developing the career of Lisa Yuskavage.
Bruno Brunnet and Nicole Hackert -  Founders of Contemporary Fine Arts in 1992 - here's an extensive list of artists they represent.
Sadie Coles - In 1992 new paintings by John Currin and an installation by Sarah Lucas were the first exhibitions shown in Sadie Coles' gallery. Soon after opening her gallery, she started "gallery swaps" - a programme of exchanging her exhibits with galleries in other locales all over the world.
Jeffrey Deitch - Seriously the coolest and most annoyingly loud website I've seen - especially for an art dealer. I have this constant image in my head that shows dealers having minimalistic lifestyles. Deitch does not look like he would tolerate the art that he collects, but sure enough he does.
Marcia Fortes - Fortes started working as an art critic and correspondent for Jornal do Brasil along with other art magazines including friez after graduating from New York University. In 2001 she founded Fortez Vilaca with her partner Alessandra d'Aloia. She is known for representing Brazilian artists like Ernesto Neto and Beatriz Milhazes.
There are so many dealers I would love to mention, but I still have four more players to name.

THE ART CONSULTANT 

For awhile I believed dealers and consultants had the same job description, but I was wrong. Who are these people? From what I gather, an art consultant is simply the middle man. They have ties to many of the seven heavy hitters in the art market. They consult collectors on what to watch for, when to buy, and even help sell the work you've collected. Consultants touch base with art dealers, other collectors, galleries, museums, and lawyers. They make a collectors profile - they are usually very personable and in order to do their job right they need to know the type of person they're buying for.
Anyone willing to spend ungodly amounts of money for a piece of art is probably a control freak, so the consultant has a pretty difficult job ahead of them. They are hired for their knowledge of the art market and to know the wants and needs of the clients they are representing. I think of a wedding planner when I think of an art consultant. They are hired because they are good at what they do, the amount of money one might spend using a wedding planner might actually save them money if they tried to do it themselves, and so on and so forth. They may not be a necessity, but if you are going to spend tons of money and you have know idea what you're spending it on, art consultants are the smart way to go.

THE COLLECTOR 

I know a couple of art collectors, and I think I am one of the lucky ones. The collectors I know are incredibly wealthy, incredibly smart, and incredibly humble. You usually don't get the chance to see all three characteristics in one person let alone two. I aspire to be an art dealer, or consultant, or adviser depending on what I can get and what I end up loving. Even though I have been extremely lucky to know these collectors, I also know that I need to meet a nasty collector in order to get a sense of what most of them are like out there. BUT the truly great collectors don't make it their goal to just make money; they want to live with major masterpieces - if you're ever up against a nasty art collector just try to remember this.

THE AUCTION HOUSE EXPERT

Sotheby's, Christie's and Phillips sound a look glamorous, but the reality is that they are struggling and competing with each other and with all the dealers...This was news to me too. I did think it would be a glamorous job - working in an auction house handling and dealing beautiful pieces of work - but I guess in retrospect auction houses are struggling. The auction houses obtain many of their prize works for sale by giving the sellers a "guarantee". Often works that are priced over $1 million will be guaranteed by the auction house for the low end of the estimate. This means that works that are priced $1 million to $1.5 million the sellers have already received a check for the low estimate from the auction house, and will probably receive only a small portion of the gain over the guaranteed figure.
Not so glamorous in the grand scheme of things. These experts need to have an extensive knowledge of the buyer's market or they're in deep shit.

THE MUSEUM PROFESSIONAL: DIRECTORS & CURATORS

I am currently working for a museum in Ohio. I am going to leave out the name because I am going to be talking about some pretty shady stuff. The museum is going in a downward spiral. Our director and associate director were hired about a year ago. The Director used to run a theatre and the Associate Director ran a small gallery that only represented community artists. The museum is in a substantial amount of debt, there is a lack of funding and a serious lack of museum ethics. The wealthy families that supported the museum have stopped giving money; one of the reasons being the museum stopped caring about the art and are now spending the money they receive on events and parties - events and parties that members only go to, probably because they get in for free or have a major discount. OVERALL, this is a shitty example for a museum.
Concerning the art market, are these the type of people that are aware of the art market today? Are they purely academic? I don't have a great answer for these questions. I do know that curators are academic, but along with this level of academia they also have a broad knowledge of the art market - they need to. To prevent questionable museum ethics, curators need to know what's selling and why. If a museum secretly started collecting certain artists for a future show "not knowing" that they were playing a big role in the art market, the museum could have a major portion of a superstar artist's collection that could potentially sell for big bucks in an auction if they decided to sell. They would become a commercial business and lose their non-profit institution status.
Collecting Contemporary. Adam Lindemann