Sexuality and art
Bradley says:
“I don’t have a blog to start a topic so I am hijacking yours. During a fellow student’s crit the other day it was suggested that she focus on sexuality in her work (it wasn’t stated that bluntly but that was the direction they were nudging her). It occured to me that sexuality is something that a lot of people make work about this and that no one ever tells them its a bad idea (i’m not saying it is). It seems that sexuality as a subject matter is infalliable. One can always make art about. I am starting to think that it is “the” default subject in which alot of people make work about when they cant think anything else… or don’t have a “project”. Don’t get me wrong some artists are compelled to make work about this but I am not talking them. I guess I was wondering what everyone thought the reasons for this were (i.e. a never ending audeince…who isn’t interested in sex) and are there other subject matters that function in the same way. Am I just making a stink about nothing? Sorry if I am rambling.”
Hijack away, Bradley; the interweb was invented for talking about sex!
Isn’t “camera vision” the default vision of many photographers? Or how about “art as therapy [for the artist and empathizers]” as the default subject for many, many artists? I think sexuality works as a subject so well because it is such a base emotional/physiological response to other people - it is how we notice the “other” in the most profound way (that and death, I suppose). Also, sexuality is inherent in every person on the planet, regardless of time, culture, etc. (although they are certainly factors which can influence the way sexuality is experienced).
9 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I have hiccups. Is that a Britisg problem?
In a way doesn’t that make is very safe art? (I will get the obvious “safe sex” joke out the the way). What is the risk in talking about something that everyone on the planet can relate to?
Does art need to be ablout risk taking? Or is it about communication, and people finding ways to talk about things? Granted, people certainly pick safe topics like sex, war or politics. Maybe thats just what people think about all the time. Or maybe people like to make work that they think people want to look at when they look at art. I certainly see enough work around Pratt that looks like the student has made it because they think thats what they should make when being an artist. The sophomore girl who feels like she should take pictures of her panties, or her friends doing coke. There are plenty of photographers exploring the home and their families. How about the self portrait which has no images of the self. that is always the best cop-out. “That kite nailed to the fence is like totally me when I feel pinned down in my relationship to the world - man”
“What is the risk in talking about something that everyone on the planet can relate to?”
(generally) What photograph can you make that someone can’t relate to?
Granted, I personally can relate to say, Robert Adams’ “What we Bought” photos and Owens’ “Suburbia” more than I can of Goldin’s pictures.
I think communication is only part of the deal and risk is an attribute that is too often overlooked. I am not talking about something that is shocking or provocative but rather expressing something that isn’t knowingly going to be accepted. It could be something that is completely boring and dumb but at least it feels sincere, at least it feels like they give a shit about something other than making accepted art. I guess that my frustration is with people who seem to be making work that they are not compelled to do. Instead they make work with a cloak of vulnerability and a lot of people are willing to play along. I am not saying that there can’t be work made about sexuality or any of the other subjects that Ben mentioned. All I want is to be convinced that it is something that they care about, regardless of the subject. Ben said that maybe this is what people think about. I want to be convinced that this is true. Show me, tell me, sing a song…I don’t care how but communicate that what you are making art about is important to you and your not doing it because you don’t know what else to do. I don’t even care if you don’t know what the hell you are doing…maybe you can’t articulate it….maybe it is something you know you just have to do and you will figure it out later. (When I say “you” I am not directing that at anyone specifically but a people in general)
In response to John’s comment: I believe there is never an absolute zero in anyone’s relationship to anything. I feel like some people view the works ability to relate as “points”. The more people who can relate, the more points you get. Some people are more concerned about the points than they are the work. This pisses me off. Maybe I won’t be so cranky in a couple of weeks.
Brad,
How do you judge (estimate?) sincerity in art, especially photography..?
How do you judge sincerity in anything? I believe it is specific to one’s own perceptions. That is all anyone has.
“I believe “it” (sencerity) is specific to one’s own perceptions. That is all anyone has.”
Surely this is applicable to everything. Isn’t everything specific to one’s own perceptions. I think that is why it is so easy to get straight A’s in art school. as long as you show up and make some work, you get the grade. That does not mean that sencerity is not an important question when viewing work. I think that it has an enormous amount to do with intention. Unfortunately we (the viewer - also known as ‘expectator’ in previous blog entries) will have to create our own estimation of intention most of the time. But most of the time that I sit in critique and wander what the intention of my fellow students were, I am normally fairly right. Of course this then places an importance on the artist statement. And here I sit trying to make sense of my own work, and trying not to write the obvious bullshit. Really I am procrastinating from getting it written for tomorrows class.
Brendan in regards to making work that is boring but honest, I am reading this Jameson text on Postmodernism and he says that “boredom with a particular kind of work or style or content can always be used productively as a precious symptom of our own existential, ideological, and cultural limits, an index of what has to be refused in the way of other people’s cultural practices and their threat to our own rationalizations about the nature and value of art.”
To think that some day I would be spouting such rubbish as if I knew what it all meant is pretty funny, but I am sure that from what I pull from this, he is pretty right. If only I could ask Jameson to write my artist statement, it would sound much more intelligent and probably a little more/less pretentious!
Sorry eveybody…I have been really cranky with final reviews this week and a 20 page paper on daguerreotypes.