In an effort to stay true to the Front Porch's mission to promote critical dialogue, discussion and conversation (see first post), we asked Rocky Horton to throw his hat into the ring on the "state of Nashville visual arts". Welcome Rocky...
As an artist and an art professor at a local university, I often find myself embroiled in a conversation, really, “The Conversation” about the state of visual art in Nashville. It begins positively enough, usually about recent shows occurring around town. It then moves into discussions about the lack of critical discernment here. Then some statements are inserted that could be placed under the heading “city envy”, concerning New York (of course), Chicago (certainly), Atlanta (hmm…) and, Memphis (Gulp!). Afterward, it quickly degenerates into an anxious and bitter tirade that can be summed up in the following statement: The Nashville Art Scene Sucks.
Given the frequency and fervor of “the conversation” one has to give it a certain amount of credibility. After all, it is occurring amongst a large portion of the artists, curators, professors, students and gallery owners of the Nashville art community. All of who are critiquing it from within. These voices join together denouncing what has for too long been a feeble, fledging art community demanding, selling, and disseminating mediocre art work while the best of Nashville goes unappreciated or, worse, ignored.
Admittedly, The Nashville art scene, like all others, is complex. It is a reflection and manifestation of the community of gallery owners, collectors, artists, and educators that create it. Therefore, it is impossible to offer a concise and thorough examination of all of its intricacies. So here, with deference to generalizations and the occasional over simplification, goes an attempt to elucidate the quagmire of problems that are the Nashville art scene.
To begin, an art scene primarily consists of artists (who make the art), gallery directors (who curate and show the art), writers (who critique and educate the public about the art), and collectors (who spend hard earned dollars to purchase the objects that have been created, curated, exhibited, critiqued and explained). It operates like an organism with all parts functioning to create a healthy whole. If any of these parts fail, it isn’t long before the entire organism is in trouble.
Somewhat shockingly, Nashville is rife with contemporary artists of merit. This is due in large part to the profusion of academic art programs (notably Vanderbilt, Watkins, and MTSU) that infuse the Nashville area with artists of academic credibility. Also, outside of the academy, there are a great number of practicing artists of excellence. These artists practice in a variety of media and methodologies. However, with very few exceptions, these artists are forced to look outside of their hometown to find a market for their wares. In fact, only a handful of the aforementioned artists are able to work and live entirely within the Nashville community. Several consider other cities, near and far, to be the home base for their practice.
A recent show by a local artist (who shall remain nameless) at a local contemporary art gallery (that shall remain nameless) had an unprecedented opening reception. Now, this event was not extraordinary because the work was great (though it was) or because the reception was well attended (though it was). What made this show extraordinary was because that particular artist sold a few pieces of artwork. This work was perhaps the most palatable of any contemporary work being done in Nashville. Meaning, that this is exactly the kind of work that one could hang in their house and still be participating in something credible and critically sound. Yet, only a few pieces sold.
After this reception, it was widely discussed amongst artists in a quietly hopeful manner reminiscent of children’s bedtime stories.
The moral of the story: If there is a problem with contemporary art in Nashville, it is not in the work being done, but how that work is being responded to. To date, Nashville’s participation in a critical conversation about art and art practice has been relegated to the academic community. There is, simply, little being done to involve the public in the art community or the art community in the public. If such a thing were to occur, it would have to begin at the gallery level.
This is a very generalized statement, so, before continuing, some nods to the current avant-garde of Nashville’s artistic public relations is in order. First, for quite some time there have been a few local galleries that have made showcasing contemporary art their main agenda. TAG, Zeitgeist, and Cumberland are perhaps the most prominent still in business. And, let’s take a moment to remember the fallen…like the Fugitive art Center. The group is still active, but nothing has risen to take the place of the now abandoned exhibition space. However, in the last few years there has been a wellspring of galleries cropping up around town. The budding scene in the arcade downtown has been a boon to the fledging art community. Unfortunately, there has been no sense of “having arrived”. Instead, most the Nashville community treats the surge in gallery going with a collective southern apologetic surprise, a combined “aw shucks”.
In fact, at present, there are no voices rising amid the din to discuss the current art scene in a manner that is both critically sound and culturally viable. There have been sporadic attempts at creating such a conversation. For instance, until recently the art writing in the Scene had a solid chance. At least a better chance than the article about local artists that was produced by another local rag- that now infamous article that explored such important issues in contemporary art like “hotness” and whether or not the interviewee was in his skivvies. Regrettably, while it may have been a mockery of serious art making, that article has resonated in the mind of the public. Now, what does that say about the public and it’s thoughts (if any) on art?
It is the burden of the writers to take what is being shown in the galleries and direct the conversation about that work. The masses, or as sculptor, David Smith, said “them asses” do not have access to “art speak” outside of critical writing. It is often the first introduction to a body of work (in critic’s picks, gallery reviews, etc.) and certainly the most helpful in acquiring some formative inside information about the work.
The importance of the public in Nashville’s art scene has led some editors (you know who you are) to ask their very capable staff to essentially “dumb down” their articles in favor of a warmed over, polite, and “OMG!”, “totally awesome!”, “wicked cool”, laden common rhetoric. Thus, most articles at present, read like a fifteen-year-old’s text message rather than a critical review of the work being presented. Unless one expects the masses to spontaneously generate a learned interest (which, according to scientist Francesco Redi in 1668, cannot happen) writers, critics, and gallerists are best serving their public by not “dumbing it down”, but raising the level of critical discourse to help educate and excite the mind of the otherwise bemused, but disengaged public. And, yes, this agenda may not sell a ton of papers…but the paper is free anyway. So, why not be part of a slightly smaller, but more committed public concerned with art writing? “Them Asses” will surely keep picking it up for the music listings, right?
Perhaps, the issue lies in the public. After all, Nashville is a town that accepts a pea gravel copy of the Parthenon as a symbol of the city’s cultural status as “Athens of the South”. It is a public that forces the Frist Center for the Visual Arts, its only venue for major art collections, to constantly regurgitate the Impressionists to keep attendance from falling. It is a town in which its main art industries, Contemporary Christian and Contemporary Country music (sometimes a hard distinction to make), almost intrinsically eschew esthetic awareness (consider the Billy Graham statue and Toby Keith’s whole career as evidence).
It is an attractive argument with a litany of affirmations. However, the burden of creating and sustaining an art community has never been on the public. It falls, however unfairly, on the same artists, galleries, and writers who are currently keeping it alive. The truth is, an art community shapes its own destiny. Again, this is accomplished by creating sound, viable artworks, getting galleries to show legitimate, courageous, and sometimes controversial works, from both local artists and artists outside the Nashville area. And, it must include allowing writers to do their job by critically discussing and examining the work.
This is crux of “the conversation”. Nashville needs critique. It needs conversation. It is an art community where anyone can, and does, exhibit work alongside anyone else. Teachers show with students, non-professionals with professionals, and artists with hobbyists. This creates confusion among the viewing public who are incapable of discerning the good from the bad without some assistance. Critics, curators, and gallery owners act as kind of artistic triage for the art world. They make quality distinctions of artwork and locate them in their proper arena: museum, gallery, frame shop, craft store, mall, trash bin, etc. If this sounds elitist it is because art is, like all cultural endeavors, somewhat elitist. There is a good and bad, a better and worse, and the sooner the Nashville community recognizes it’s best, the community as a whole will have something to strive for.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Monday, October 1, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)