The Future
September 2004

I have to wonder, what the answers to this question would have been in 1904, for the upcoming twentieth century. “What will the role of the artist be in the twentieth century?”

Of course, this isn’t really comparable to our question here and now, no matter how much you might fiddle with the exact circumstances... “A few young artists, in New York... no, make it Paris... talking about what they think will happen in art in the next hundred years... they have to have a good knowledge of all the latest developments in fine art, from a conceptual standpoint... oh, and they have to recognize that there is such a thing as a conceptual standpoint...” Things change, quite a lot. In 1904, who could have predicted the 1950’s, the 1970’s, much less the turn of this century. This isn’t to say this is a completely useless exercise though. Quite the contrary, it’s pretty important, but we need to realize that predicting the future is more a reflection of the present than of the future. Think of all the science fiction of the past, confronting “the future”: it’s laughable, not only in terms of the overestimation and/or underestimation of technological advances, but also in terms of social, political, and cultural issues. Something being exaggerated probably means it’s an issue of some concern in the present, and something being missed entirely probably means the world is way too complex to predict any more than a few days into the future.

That being said, I do have a few thoughts, today, September 27th, 2004, on the subject of the upcoming 100 years and fine art. I think the large question for fine art is a question of relevance. I’m not suggesting that art is “dead,” and I don’t think it ever will be. It is seen, and acknowledged, bought and sold, it has influence. More and more museums are built or remodeled, this generation has a greater number and a greater percentage of people calling themselves artists than any before it, biennials are sprouting everywhere, more galleries open every year... it seems that fine art is very alive and healthy. This could be its problem though. It is possible that fine art, rather than being declared “dead,” could be declared something even worse. Sterilized, corporate-ized, co-opted, domesticated... The art world may be getting along stupendously, by the numbers, but what the hell is it doing? No number of bad paintings selling for a hundred thousand dollars on 24th street will be enough to make art relevant.

This is a time of disciplines crossing into each other’s territory. Psychology informs cultural studies, neuroscience informs linguistics, journalism informs fiction, quantum physics informs philosophy... in all cases, because it has to. One discipline confronts a problem which basically stumps it, but it then finds the answer in another discipline. One reason this can happen is the obvious technical/scientific reason, but another, much more complex reason is in the realm of attitudes and approaches. Every discipline, whether it’s science, economics, communications, or humanities, has its own set of customs, ways of presenting and re-presenting problems, issues, questions, or suggestions, and it’s often very interesting to “import” those customs into a different framework, a different discipline. So, again, what the hell is art doing? What is it merging itself with? Tourism? Entertainment? I don’t see the artist’s approach appearing in many other disciplines. I do see some other approaches appearing in art though, and if you ask me, they’re the wrong ones. We’re picking up things like market research, the dynamics of fashion trends, simplistic mathematical forms of logic, a politician-esque (read: calculated) neutrality... I thought these were antithetical to the concepts of contemporary art. These attitudes and habits seem more and more compatible with art though.

I think the future of fine art will be defined by the conflicts which will arise from various encroachments, both “imports” and “exports.” Art’s defining quality is precisely in the fact that it is a realm of complete freedom, of ethics without compromise, of redefining and reconstructing every issue or system of logic it touches. Rather than building on its own past, art continuously breaks with its own past... Very few things in the world have these qualities. Sooner or later this stance will find a place, exported into another discipline. Probably later. In the meantime, art needs to become more aware that this actually is its stance. To put it as a cheesy metaphor, as long as we’re complacent being a well-fed fish in a tank, we can’t be a hungry fish in an ocean. I’m not too pessimistic about this, actually; a lot of artists actually do care about saying something important, and about doing it in a way which couldn’t happen with any other approach. The obstacle is the task of getting that sentiment into the public sphere. Art could be an important thing, and could be part of people’s lives in some way. It could have a real relation to other disciplines, of all sorts. And on its own terms, even; I’m not talking about dumbing anything down.

I can’t say that I know exactly what needs to be done, only that if we as artists can be responsible, and aware – supposedly some of the things we do best – we’ll be able to act appropriately when an opportunity comes to do something. Any significant cultural shift involves a number of factors, all of them interdependent, so who knows what the scenario will be. On my part, I’m just constantly thinking of how art actually does potentially fit into our overall culture, and how I might bend it or twist it a little to make it fit better... How are people ever going to see this? Why would they care? How can I make it a little more likely that they’ll get the ideas in it without compromising those ideas? What is it about this stuff, and other stuff I know of, that is actually something people ought to experience – is it in the idea, is it in the process? If we’re not asking these questions, the default answers are not going to get us anywhere.