Having begun my career in support of the emergence of video art, I deeply identify with your concern and your thesis here. Thank you Carter. Generosity and kindness should always be central to any serious critical response to new art.
Carter, three statements in your essay triangulate for me:
1. By the early 1970s, some in the New York art world felt that you were not a serious artist unless members of the great, uninitiated public had accused you of trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
2. Eventually, interpretation becomes self-interpretation, as you arrive at the point of asking: Who am I, who must I be to be finding these meanings here?
3. The generosity of art is built in. It is inalienable, like our civil rights, and that is why it cannot be cruel.
I agree that each artist is being generous in their project, in proposing the artworks they present. But one might say the generosity of art stops when a viewer unfamiliar with its terms comes up against the hard wall of its indifference. At that point the artwork may become as neutral as the sun; its "intention" just as remote and esoteric (but without the redeeming warmth or glow). The cruelty, then, is not in the artist but in the circumstances in which the art is presented, which are often intimidating to the uninitiated. (And as you point out, even Matisse was once uninitiated to Cubism, and de Kooning to Pop.) The presumption of superiority that runs with elite viewing spaces, and the atmosphere of quiet moneyed luxury that infuses them—I would suggest that is where the cruelty lies.
"its generosity is limitless, and that is why there is no end to its power to entangle us in the questions of meaning that sustain our humanity."
Indeed, the meanings of every work are experienced differently and do reveal layers of meanings that entangle us in our humanity. The metaphysical pointers and meanings that entangle us most are the ones that reveal the most. Indeed, it seems that every generation must stumble upon these same dilemmas, and thrash through them as though they were the first ones to find themselves in the bramble.
We artists should be surrounding our viewers in those metaphysical entanglements, with works in our own technologies, so each viewer can explore and find their way... into freedom, presence, and sustaining human values.
Dear Carter, A really lovely essay. Of seeing artwork you say “interpretation becomes self-interpretation.” I think this happens and requires a bit of courage from viewers. Few people want to self-interpret because it requires knowing something about yourself. Maybe viewers don’t even know they are self-interpreting - for example they like an artwork but don’t know exactly why.
Having begun my career in support of the emergence of video art, I deeply identify with your concern and your thesis here. Thank you Carter. Generosity and kindness should always be central to any serious critical response to new art.
Carter, three statements in your essay triangulate for me:
1. By the early 1970s, some in the New York art world felt that you were not a serious artist unless members of the great, uninitiated public had accused you of trying to pull the wool over their eyes.
2. Eventually, interpretation becomes self-interpretation, as you arrive at the point of asking: Who am I, who must I be to be finding these meanings here?
3. The generosity of art is built in. It is inalienable, like our civil rights, and that is why it cannot be cruel.
I agree that each artist is being generous in their project, in proposing the artworks they present. But one might say the generosity of art stops when a viewer unfamiliar with its terms comes up against the hard wall of its indifference. At that point the artwork may become as neutral as the sun; its "intention" just as remote and esoteric (but without the redeeming warmth or glow). The cruelty, then, is not in the artist but in the circumstances in which the art is presented, which are often intimidating to the uninitiated. (And as you point out, even Matisse was once uninitiated to Cubism, and de Kooning to Pop.) The presumption of superiority that runs with elite viewing spaces, and the atmosphere of quiet moneyed luxury that infuses them—I would suggest that is where the cruelty lies.
Let us emphasise this aspect of the essay:
"its generosity is limitless, and that is why there is no end to its power to entangle us in the questions of meaning that sustain our humanity."
Indeed, the meanings of every work are experienced differently and do reveal layers of meanings that entangle us in our humanity. The metaphysical pointers and meanings that entangle us most are the ones that reveal the most. Indeed, it seems that every generation must stumble upon these same dilemmas, and thrash through them as though they were the first ones to find themselves in the bramble.
We artists should be surrounding our viewers in those metaphysical entanglements, with works in our own technologies, so each viewer can explore and find their way... into freedom, presence, and sustaining human values.
Thanks for another wonderful essay !
Dear Carter, A really lovely essay. Of seeing artwork you say “interpretation becomes self-interpretation.” I think this happens and requires a bit of courage from viewers. Few people want to self-interpret because it requires knowing something about yourself. Maybe viewers don’t even know they are self-interpreting - for example they like an artwork but don’t know exactly why.
here’s a piece that might be viewed through a similar lens and at the end of it, a thoughtful take on the idea by Vito Acconci: https://open.substack.com/pub/craigpleasants/p/find-a-chicken?r=fniqk&utm_medium=ios
Wonderful essay xoxxo