Review to read (at least quickly familiarize yourself with): It’s Boring at the Top by Jerry Saltz (submitted by Saraphina for class discussion)
Blog Response DUE by Tuesday, June 10th: 
Reading Due:
- Croce, Arlene. “Introduction” and “Discussing the Undiscussable,” Crisis of Criticism.
- “Confronting Head on the Face of the Afflicted,” Crisis of Criticism.
You must address BOTH readings in your blog response. Your response must also be thoughtful and critical, not merely a restatement of what you read. Also, when you provide textual evidence (quotes or summarizations), be sure to explain HOW that quote or reference further illuminates the point you are trying to make. DO NOT let the quote speak for you!
- In Croce’s essay, she says that she has not seen Bill T. Jones’s “Still/Here” and doesn’t plan to review it. According to Croce, why will she not review the dance performance? What is your response?
- Croce brings up the term “victim art” within her (non)review of Jones’s dance performance. What exactly do you think Croce means by the term “victim art”? Do you agree or disagree with Croce’s term “victim art” and why?
- Croce’s essay brought on a slew of critical responses, some suggested that while Croce’s essay was understandably controversial, Croce also had some good arguments. What might those be? What did Croce argue about art and/or our ways of perceiving it that actually have logical merit?
- Discuss Oates response to Croce with a focus on the term “victim art.” Does Oates take primary offense at the use of the term “victim art” or Croce’s claim that such art is “beyond criticism”? Why? Explain your response and provide textual evidence (quotes, paraphrases and/or examples from the text) to back up your conclusion.
- In what ways are Oates’ arguments both convincing AND unconvincing? Where are the strengths in her arguments? Where are the flaws? Again, explain your response and provide textual evidence (quotes, paraphrases and/or examples from the text) to back up your conclusion.
- Oates utilizes multiple examples in an attempt to argue that history is full of art that points to painful and authentic experience, but we do not render it “beyond criticism” as did Croce with the Bill T. Jones’ dance. However, what is the primary (and perhaps the most significant) difference between Oates’ examples and the Bill T. Jones’ dance (not)reviewed by Croce?
- In Croce’s essay, she argues a certain point of view in regards to what she believes constitutes art or makes it valuable as art. In what ways does each author reflect (however explicit or subtle) one of the main arguments of either Bell, Tolstoy, Sontag or Winterson?
** Always, always back up your thoughts with some example, quote, or explanation.
![OMG ! [ Explore #1 ]](http://static.flickr.com/2631/4150305338_5dd4270c04_t.jpg "OMG ! [ Explore #1 ]")
14 responses so far ↓
rachel galicia // June 5, 2008 at 6:42 pm |
I went to see the exhibit and found it interesting, but some of it was bland to me. I really loved Dave Pearson’s “Radiosity.” At first when I went up to them I was like Oh boring but pretty magazine landscape pictures so I started to turn around but that last glance I got before I turned around was “WAIT A MINUTE that doesnt look real!” And it want it was all digital and wonderful. It was really dreamlike because it was so perfect and dreamy. He really captured reality with the lighting and vivid colors. The other exhibit that caught my eye was Marc Dostie’s “space tek” I hated that one. It made me think “what the hell is that crap!” All I got out of it was hey the world is collapsing into a black hole because of golf. A lot of it was very interesting though.
Toi Neeley // June 9, 2008 at 8:24 pm |
What I feel that Croce means by the term “victim art” is that this artist is aware of its audience before hand and location to provoke such pity or emotion on the viewers. In a sense I do agree because as a human (if I have one ounce of compassion within me) I will reject any negativity from a piece of art work that pulls my heart out on my sleeve, something that I can relate to personally that was triggered by an idea or if society decides it’s not ethnically correct to criticism or reject the piece of art or the subject.. Croce describes “victim art” as a “mutually manipulative union”. On one hand “victim art” really does captivates its audience due to pulling them into their world. On the other hand I feel that the term “Victim” to be enabling and looked upon as a disability. Why is it that after viewing art, if an individual feels convicted or compiled by a piece of art then they are considered a victim. I feel that it’s a way for the viewer to take responsible for there place as a viewer instead of accepting a victim role. How can art be free and liberating if it’s labeled as “Victim Art”. Why would you want to play that role. It’s not being true to yourself or to the artist. Feedback would lack and the artist overall in my opinion dies and society suffers. Positive criticism and feedback to art is what makes change and brings about boldness in art. I feel that some art is especially designed to trigger emotion or to cause deep thought, but because it is successful in achieving it’s purpose Should it be labeled “Victim Art”!
Saraphina // June 10, 2008 at 8:36 am |
When I first came to Chicago I was thrown into the worlds of Art as I wanted to experience it, raw and rough the way the big city had intended. I was excited for the vibrant new world that not only visual art would represent by the physicality of Art as well. I braved Chicago as a dance major. I wanted to be the multi-talented female with pursuits in all fields. But dance was what drove me and it still does. I was a ballerina and for me my box was contained and I had no intention of realizing my self into an aggravating world that was in my mind not safe. I will honestly say that I switched my major from dance to musical theatre because I despise modern dance. I have respect for modern dancers because of the love and dedication they put into there Art form, but puling off modern dance traditionally and correctly is in my opinion the only option I can reasonably view. I could empathize deeply with Arlene Croce and the over the top victim art that was presented by Bill T. Jones. One thing I must say about Bill T Jones is that he is one of the founders of contemporary dance. That his flexed feet and creativity with movement I find to be revolutionary. I do not support by any means victim art as I have been witness to victim Art and it almost takes the ecstasy out of enjoying art. I find that on page 22, I almost find it hilarious the reference with humpty dumpty” Its art if I say its art.” Ha! I disagree. Its not Art if the person that is declaring its Art makes the person thats viewing Art uncomfortable to the point of being confined. I believe Art is a release of emotion however I concur that Bill T. Jones is using dancers with HIV to create tension with the Art world. I understand that anger and must be a part of Bill T. Jones choice in his creation as HIV is a horrific thing to deal with. That his way of discussing the disease is through Dance, but why aggravate art to the extent no one wants to go. I would be appreciative if it was a brief melodramatic encounter with HIV and Aids, to demonstrate the struggle, however the forever over dramatic continuation, shows lack of creativity and almost insults the dancers for which all have the disease. It seems that Ms. Croce is correct as she states on page 25, “drained of inspiration.” It is almost in my opinion un inspirational for dancers and people a like to be constantly reminded of there suffering. As the viewers can only notice the illness and not the dance.
On another note and one I believe to be just as or more emphasized by Ms. Joyce Carol Oates. She breaks outside the world of dance to touch more so on the other ideals of what “victim art” should and or is, with references to classics, such as Angels in America by the HIV positive play write Tony Kushner or Dorthy Langes Photographs “Damaged Child” heart wrenching and almost mind numbing photographs. The debate continues whether are has to be shocking to be effective. Classics, such as Shakespeare and Chekov create profound works of Art without having to shock its audience out of its comfort zone. Aristotle’s poetics as discussed on page 36, is the first form of a review, not actually reviewing anything but discussing what is expected from a Comedy and a tragedy to make acceptable within the Art form. I’m not trying to push for every play write, composer or visual artist to follow guide lines, however maybe we can learn from this brief mention that perhaps it is necessary to have guidelines to certain various art forms. A technique so to speak. I don’t want as Croc says on the last page 40 to say there is an obligation to define art as most would say its undefinable. Then how do we know what “art” is if it always a victim?
Rachael Harter // June 10, 2008 at 12:16 pm |
My response this time may at first seem to be not as “deep” into the self-reflections that these pieces in the past have brought out of me. The wrestling of ideas and theories still squirms inside me but my opinion on one of the articles read was so quick to form that not much inner reflection took place. So can I begin by saying, “Thank you Croce” for proving my point of people not wanting to deal with truth in life. Could it be any more clearly proved? And I have to say it has taken great energy to keep myself from over criticizing Croce myself. To run from something, regardless of what point you are trying to make, to me is shallow and show little depth, integrity or character in general. At least go and see the thing and then form your opinions. You may feel you are making a great point by your absence but the only point it has made to me is that you are not secure enough in yourself or your reviews to wrestle with something that is out of your box. I will move on as to not completely tear her to shreds as in some since she was trying to be true to the illusion she holds inside her. Besides her words lost all power to persuade or really keep my attention after the first few pages of her “opinion” on why she will not go and see the piece. Who knows maybe my own perceptions were ignited so fast that I was not able to really get a full picture of what she was trying to say. I, however, from how I understood her have a different perception of what “victim” art is (if it must be coined by this term). To me it’s life, reality, and the rawness of part of the truth of our existence. To avoid it is to avoid the reality of life, which so many are trying to do. The danger in this can be deadly in itself (ironic for those trying to avoid the subject of death). Ignorance is not always bliss. Fortunately the reading by Oates helped to sooth my soul a bit. (Apparently I do hold stronger opinions in the subject of art than I previously had perceived as my blood was beginning to boil more and more with every word from Croce’s article) Many pieces under the genre of “black ritual art” may be perceived as “victim” art. However, as defined by most, one of the larges purposes of this genre is to “bind, cleanse and heal”. Apparently at least some people have learned that things happen to people. To hide it can be death. To reveal it and speak out, as uncomfortable it makes those who will not deal with their own ghosts, can bind, cleanse and heal. To say that that this art form has not point but to dwell on death could not be farther from the truth. It is this art from that can actually bring about life. Oates says it well, “Many of our human stories end not in triumph but defeat. To demand that the victimized persons transcend their pain in order to make their audiences feel good is another kind of tyranny.” In the words of my father, “No pain, No gain.” To walk in deception is more defeat to ones soul than the actual tragic event that is being portrayed. So people lets wake up and deal with life. Every one has a story, though apparently some people’s story is too much for another. To me that just proves the point of who the “real” victim is.
April // June 10, 2008 at 1:36 pm |
I believe that victim art has a certain place in the world. Some artists feel that it is necessary to show the pain and suffering of others to their audience. Personally I try to stay away from victim art. That may make me close minded or naive, but I look to art to make me happy (most of the time). There are some times when I want to think deeply about the topics that are affecting our world, but I don’t normally look to art for that. I look to the news.
I will always remember the movie Crash that I was made to watch for a class at Columbia. I don’t know if this movie necessarily qualifies as “victim art”, but it was, in my opinion, one of the worst movies I had ever seen. Oddly enough, the movie won best picture a few years ago. Anyway, the movie was a jumble of racist stories, that all eventually ended up intertwining in the most ridiculous way. The movie ended, and I felt as if I had just viewed a bad after school special. I didn’t get anything out of the movie that I didn’t already know, “Racism is bad”. The movie forced its opinions on you, and you knew exactly how the movie wanted you to think.
I believe this is part of what Croce is getting at when she wrote about victim art. Victim art automatically makes you feel sorry for the victims as soon as you start viewing the art. In one paragraph she states how she hates being “forced to feel sorry for dissed blacks, abused women, and disfranchised homosexuals”. The type of art that works for me is the art that lays it all out there, and then lets you form your own opinions.
Samantha H. // June 10, 2008 at 1:39 pm |
These two pieces left me, honestly, not knowing what exactly to think. And I feel there is still some to ponder. But offhand, considering that I am running out of time for this blog, I will say that overall I agreed much more with Oates, and in many ways am disgusted by Croce’s argument. Oates rightly points to a passage that is revealing, to say the least: “I’m forced to feel sorry for them by the way they present themselves: dissed blacks, abused women, or disenfranchised homosexuals.” This along with what appears to be an overall resentment for the radical changes of the 1960s, makes me conclude that Croce must be quite conservative. There is an air of idealizing/romanticizing the past and resenting radical change that runs throughout her piece, that I feel is just conservatism and, as Oates puts out, an inability to adapt to art in a changing world.
However, there seems to be more to the picture–perhaps a deeper argument that Oates does not take on sufficiently. And that is that Croce’s piece also consists of a critique of narcissism in post-modern pieces–a critique that, out of the context of victim art (as in-not in context used by Croce), I think I agree with. For instance, she gets into how audiences these days like to see victims, like to see suffering, and then patronize the actual victims by clapping. Some other theorists (which would be interesting if we read) like Slavoj Zizek, have commented extensively on this–and how this could possibly reflect inner desires for the real, but end up in a perverted masturbatory fantasy. It would be much more interesting to me if someone were to explore Croce’s deeper arguments, not just develop a surface reaction (which in a large part I believe Oates engaged).
Croce also argues that postmodern art has also become utilitarian–and that paticularly with mass produced art, the art has to be something useful. I would agree that there are elements of this and that there are negative aspects to this. But I don’t really think it is even a correct analysis of mass produced art under late capitalism, and also I believe that there is a difference between art arising out of individual artists influenced by the 60s, and advertising companies. Croce does not makes this distinction, and in lopping all “mass produced” and postmodern art, she is ignoring some crucial class conflicts. (as most conservatives do). For instance, one of Croce’s arguments is that art during the 80s and 90s became more about trying to get grant money, and therefore became politicized (if I understand her correctly), in a way that made artists deem themselves victims (in order to recieve funding). I am very skeptical of this argument. A lot of artists I am sure these days produce in order to get “grants” (not likely coming from the government today unless it is being used for direct propaganda purposes), or to make money–which does strip the art of substance, or, if one can uncover it, reveals the nature of the capitalist system and how it devours and drains everything. However, that is not what Croce is saying: she is saying that the government was giving grants to those who could become better “victims,” and that was creating a narcisstic and money grubbing kind of postmodern art. Can this argument really hold up to reality? It sounds just as backward as some of the typical arguments we hear from extreme reactionaries today. And frankly, it sounds like bullshit. The decade Croce is referring to is one of the most conservative in history–a coupld of decades where the backlash against the 60s was at its highest–where the government bega (and continues) to slash, not up–funding for social needs, much less artistic needs, in general–and one where the AIDS crisis, in paticular, was treated by people like Reagan as if it did not even exist! That leads me to say–what the hell is Croce talking about? Perhaps she is asking some of the right questions (not in regard to suffering on stage, I think she is just flat out wrong on that, but on postmodern narcissism and art as utility), and pointing to causes and solutions that are in the wrong place.
rachel galicia // June 10, 2008 at 1:49 pm |
In Croce’s essay she will not review “Still/Here” because she states that with the actual pictures of people with AIDS Bill T. Jones declares war on the critics. “You were manipulated into accepting what you saw as art. With Jones you were actually intimidated.” She also states that she “can’t review someone I feel sorry for or hopeless about.” Also she says that the other category that she can’t dicuss are the dancers that she would be “forced to feel sorry for because of the way they present themselves:…as performers, in short, who make out of victimhood victim art.” She believed that this art has a power over our consciences and manipulates our feelings about it. To her art like that cannot be discussed because she can’t criticize people that she feels sorry for and to her Bill Jones feel into the “pathology in art” that started in the sixties anarchic freedoms.
I think she is going a little overboard with it just because I side with Oates who explains that there is a history of art that affects the audience’s emotions.
The difference between the examples that Oates gives and Bill Jones’ dance is that “Still/Here” is that maybe Bill Jones was always a radical who was immune from harsh criticism. Also Croce had a more personal experience with the artist Bill Jones when he used her phrase ”fever swamps” (that was supposed to be a bad criticism) as the title of the piece she was reviewing. She may have felt threatened by him from the start and refused to see or review that “victim art” of his. She added other examples of “issue oriented art” like Oates and both show authentic experiences. But in Croce’s essay I felt more of a hate feeling towards the artist Bill Jones and art that forces people to feel sorry for certain people. Also Croce is a dance critic unlike Oates so maybe that could have added that feeling that I got from Croce.
torreyanna // June 10, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
Arlene Croce’s “Discussing the Undiscussable”
Victim art. Parading wounds. Narcissism of the nineties replacing Spirit with Self. I can’t actually argue with anything Croce is saying. In fact the disgust I felt for her upon reading the first sentence of this article had almost completely dissipated by the end. I think she is very smart, thoughtful, experienced and has a few good points. What I wonder about the whole argument about victims and the “unwell” is this; Are we not, every one of us, dying?
Ok, now that I said that, I loathe the victim and the cry for pity perhaps so much because it is deeply embedded in my personal behavior. I have a disgusting habit of feeling sorry for myself, complaining and seeking attention for my sadness. Yuck. My mother, who is not so different from me, also has displayed this behavior. She once told me that perhaps one of the types of movies she hates the most is the kind that forces you to cry when you really don’t want to. I think she was commenting on this “Victim Art” idea, our need to feel sorry for someone who is not doing so great, at least compared to us. Or maybe it’s our need to relate and simultaneously feel sorry for ourselves. Are we not crying for ourselves when the mom in the movie dies? We are, until our own mother really dies and then we can’t watch dying mom movies anymore.
So I guess I can see why she didn’t see the performance. I guess she knew about Jones’ work, and had a running “dialogue” with him and his art. I think she works her angles very well. I would like to conclude that even though it was a sneaky angle, I would’ve liked to know how she felt after actually watching the thing. After reading her review, or “non-review”, though, I wouldn’t have wanted to see it. I have enough to feel sorry for and about already.
Nancy // June 10, 2008 at 3:34 pm |
I believe I understand why Croce opted not to review Bill T. Jones’ “Still/Here.” I think that she felt he was cheating. That by using real people that were struggling to live, he was copping out and resorting to taking advantage of the audience by pulling at heartstrings with the stories of these real people. I think she felt that he should be able to get this same response on the dance’s own merit. She even says that she feels his piece could still have value in another “sphere of action.” But because she critiques “dance theater,” that’s how she would approach his piece, but she no longer CAN because it isn’t dance any longer. “…my approach has been cut off. By working dying people into his act, Jones is putting himself beyond the reach of criticism.”
That being said, I think she could still get that same point across by actually attending the show. There were still dance elements to be seen and reviewed and I think her “review” would have been even more powerful had she seen the piece and then refused to comment on it. I felt that she was, in a way, picking up her toys in a huff and going home. Jones wasn’t playing by the known rules, so Croce wasn’t going to play.
Oates’ essay showed how, throughout history, this same sort of thinking was common. “Through the centuries…criticism has exerted a primarily conservative force…interpreting the new and startling in terms of the old and familiar; denouncing as “not art” what upsets cultural, moral, and political expectations.” Isn’t that exactly what Croce did? Oates goes on to give examples of various artists that were given very poor reviews by their contemporaries, but then later had later acclaim. I think Oates is just trying to tell us to look at, and learn from, past mistakes in “criticism.” Have an open mind. Just as art changes, so must the standards that are used to critique it. For example, 50 yrs ago there was no Rap category in the Grammy’s, but there is today…
Ashley // June 10, 2008 at 4:46 pm |
I agree with Croce on her views of victim art, as not being art. I do find it hard to call the display of the sick or misfortunate art. Because I feel as though people well base their views and judgments on the misfortunes of the artists and not on the form or content. And even though these pieces may make you feel something as art is suppose to do it is not the art that is creating these feelings it is society and just plain human compassion. A person with cancer can approach me and tell me they have cancer and a feeling of empathy, and pity will more then likely occur in me no matter how they present this information to me. So how can one tell if it is the art that is affecting them or the artist’s situation?
But at the same time I do not know were the line is drawn between victim art, or art about victims. Like in the film world we have the documentary. A majority of documentaries are focused on those less fortunate. Would these films be considered victim art? I believe they do, but in this form I agree with it, and the reason why is I feel that documentaries serve a purpose, they are informing the audience and advocating change. For example the documentary “Born into Brothels,” Here we have a film about a bunch of poor children living in the red-light district in Calcutta. The film has images of their broken down homes, there drug addicted/ prostitute parents. However the children for the most part appear happy the film is for the most part a feel good film, these kids are not presented as victims even though they are victims of their environment. So by showing their unfortunate situation but at the same time presenting it in an entertaining film that does not show these people as victims to me makes it art. The film also goes on to show a way to help these kids so this art is helping the people it is taking as its subject. And I couldn’t agree with this more.
So that’s my opinion on victim art I think if presented as though these people are nor just victims but people who do experience joy and happiness as well as showing entertainment and creating different views and learning having art about victims is o.k.
Laura // June 10, 2008 at 5:07 pm |
While cringing to the dehumanizing non-critique of “Still/Here” by Arlene Croce, I honestly attempted to view her side of opinions on victim art, and while I found a few sentences here and there that I was in agreement with, the majority of her views seemed dated and above that, frightened. Croce’s abhorrence for art that she deems “undiscussable” is a telling example of how critics want to feel their necessity in art, when, on occasion, they have none. This is not to say that critique is not welcome in art, but moreso that sometimes art is human and relatable enough in nature that any interpretation and subsequently criticism is not a “necessity” (as it can be viewed as banal and even condescending at times), but merely a freedom of expression to take at will. Croce also seems to want to criticize sans criticism, which in itself discredits her as a critic. In taking offense and responding defensively to Bill T. Jones’s titling a reactionary piece after one of her criticisms, Croce clearly proves that she “can dish it out, but can’t take it”. “When a victim artist finds his or her public, a perfect, mutually manipulative union is formed which no critic may put asunder.” (pp. 18) In response to this, I ask Croce, does she truly feel that artists are always creating art with the critic in mind? And if so, I don’t think I want to meet those kinds of artists. Perhaps Croce is feigning an attempt at protecting her job security here, accusing artists of creating art that cannot be critiqued (solely based on the fact that she doesn’t personally possess the ability to critique art for which she feels sorry or “hopeless” for, which in itself I find offensive and cowardly). I almost feel as if this non-criticism is a defense mechanism being used by Croce in an attempt to avoid the challenge a modern critic faces when evaluating contemporary/progressive/abstract art. Croce was trained to critique dance theater, and when a new piece that is not easily defined by pre-constructed language in her industry opens, she denies its value and attacks the artist instead of cultivating a new method of evaluation for this undefined art style. Instead of growing with art that is undeniably evolving, she is turning a blind eye to the possibility of the piece being substantial, or even worth viewing at all. I think Croce’s stubbornness will be her biggest downfall, as the industry in which she employs her talents is becoming less and less definable and expectable, which seems to be an issue for her. Joyce Carol Oates, in response to Croce’s piece summed up my feelings about Croce’s obstinate views on victim art in saying, “Criticism is itself an art form, and like all art forms it must evolve, or atrophy and die.” (pp. 40) We are entering an epoch of undefined art, and if Croce is not yet prepared to work outside of her classical context, she should be wary in so adamantly dismissing the art which she does not understand.
Jordan // June 10, 2008 at 5:26 pm |
Arlene Croce says she will not review Bill T. Jones “Still/Here” because she sees it as a form of victim art. Of course there is some dancing involved, but the whole dance is centered around dying people who have HIV/AIDS. She says because of putting death and dying people into the art, that the artist has removed himself from criticism. Where I agree with her is that it IS difficult to criticize “people you feel sorry for.” I get the feeling though, she just wanted to see a dance for enjoyment. But art cannot help what emotions it conveys. I think victim art does have its place, to bring attention to political or social injustices. Joyce Carol Oates argument that “victim art” or what she referred to as “authentic experience in art” is a valid one. Examples of this include “The Diary of Anne Frank” Dorothea Lange’s “Damaged Child” among others. She says “if art is too raw to be reviewed, shouldnt it be witnessed?” That last sentence I think is one of the flaws of her arguement. Croce is a professional critic, whose job it is to review. The whole time I was reading Croces essay, I kept thinking about Jeanette Winterson and the clip we watched last week. She says we need art to help change our ideas of the world through viewing, hearing, or seeing art. I think Bill T. Jones dance would def. make us think about AIDS/Cancer and cures for these diseases, as well as injustices one has when cursed with one of these terminal illneses, hard to get jobs, hard to keep jobs, no healthcare, etc.
Danny A // June 10, 2008 at 5:29 pm |
In Arlene Croce’s essay, “Discussing the Undiscussable,” she discusses her discontent for Bill T. Jones’s “Still/Here” as being un-reviewable because it displays dancers presenting themselves as “dissed blacks, abused women, or disenfranchised homosexuals…who make out of victimhood victim art.” Jones’s show also used video of victims of aids and cancer, which played during the dance performance. Croce believes that Jones’s use of real, dying people forces the audience to empathize regardless of the artists abilities, and is therefore undiscussable.
I find her ability to dissect and review the nature and intentions of Jones’s piece both undermines and negates her argument that art created in this fashion is undiscussable. She claims victim art defies criticism because we we feel sorry for the victim and are cowed by the art.
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how any art can be beyond critical review regardless of how it is presented, the emotions it invokes, or the subject matter it relates to. As Joyce Carol Oats argued, “Doesn’t all art, especially the conventional and pleasing, have the goal of affecting an audience’s emotions?” Croce even admitted that Jones’s piece instills emotion in the viewer, so no matter if the show was good or bad (I don’t know because she didn’t actually see it. -hrmph-) it still has merit as art, and is thus reviewable, criticizable, and discussable.
On a final note, undiscussable, according to every dictionary I looked in, is not a word. I find that annoying.
Michael Miles // June 19, 2008 at 5:54 pm |
Croce’s article is pointed, on task, and vicious. In fact, it has the feeling that this has been germinating in her gut for a long time. The truth, her use of Bill T. Jones “Still/Here” as the fulcrum point from which she intends to move the universe of criticism and art, is purely a smokescreen. I hypothesize that if it wasn’t this piece, it would have been another. The piece of performance art didn’t matter, she had squarely taken aim, some time ago, and pointed her gun at the target and Bill T. Jones performance was just the moment she needed. It came into her sights and she pulled the trigger. Thus, the hullabaloo about her not reviewing the art that she is “criticizing” is missing the point.
She had no intention of seeing or reviewing this, because she is debasing it. This is her way of stealing credibility and placing it on the correct shelf. Un-viewable and Undiscussable. If she were to view it, she would be lending credence and power to it. She would have to relent and define it as art, and that goes against her entire thesis point.
The fact is, the woman has an agenda and she is pushing. Like many before her and many after her, she has come to grow into a state of comfort about what art is to her, about what expectations she places on a piece of work to excite her. However, she has grown old and the ever flowing river that art moves on has washed downstream and she failed to catch the last ship. However, her arrogance and self-righteous importance leaves her with the idea that she, because of her position, has the power to define the indefinable. This she believes is a right the critic has, especially the well seasoned critic; the critic of stature who can speak from the mountain tops of such a publication as the *gasp* New Yorker.
However, her words are so obscured by the tonal arrogance and political partisanship that she displays. Instead of humbly submitting questions and ideas, she insists upon eviscerating this type of art as something not just beneath her, but beneath the artist who has made it. “Jones, who came along at that time, was one of our favorites, because he seemed to be uninterested in conforming to the stereotype of the respectable black choreographer. ..Jones main connection to the sixties experimenters was to the power they’d claimed to control the terms on which they could artists. This, it turns out in retrospect was their lasting legacy and Jones had been their most conspicuous legatee.” (Croce Discussing the Undisccusable 19, 20) Thus she presents Jones as at once a choreographer ahead of the pack and yet dubiously and blindly following a non artistic crusade in his work. Thus she has been able to form her attack in such a way to say that this man knows great art and is capable of making it. However, his current trend is off base, away from art and it comes from his political ideology and that of his contemporaries. It is almost a poor him statement, at the same time uplifting this man in his more traditional past but deriding him in his experimental present.
The fact is, Croce’s problem does have an interesting idea around it and it’s one that is actually being regularly debated to this day by followers and lovers of art. She is seriously questioning the value of agenda art, when is too much too much, when should we care, does the artist who preaches against unfairness have a social responsibility to put his time and effort into stopping it rather than just preaching? All of these questions have a great amount of value. However, by attempting to destroy this current strong trend of “Victim Art,” she subverts her own agenda. She has taken the discussion on the value and quality of art that deals so plainly with death and disease and mass-victimization and moved it to place where she can’t win. Instead of viewing the piece of work of Bill T Jones “Still/Here” and discussing the merits and qualities, she instead tries to force feed her audience into the belief that because there is a social or political agenda in the work it is not art, because it deals with victims it is not art, because it looks at disease and death it is not art. Here, her argument breaks down. Many great works of art deal with and address these issues. It is the right of the artist to create any work he may choose (as much as I may dislike it) and once it is created a piece cannot truly be argued that it is not art, for the word is such a loose term. It is in and of itself indefinable.
In her response, Oates goes to great lengths to refute Croce’s notion that this is some kind of new and insidious trend in art. She talks for a long time, mentioning artist after artist and work after work pointing to the traditional past and giving examples of artists who have dealt with similar issues in similar ways. “Consider great memoirists work like Dostoyevsky’s House of the Dead, American slave narratives by ex-slaves Frederick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs, the witness-bearing testimonies of the Holocaust survivors Primo Levi, Ellie Wiesel, Aaharon Applefield, and Tadeusz Borowoski, and the poetry by Nelly Sachs and Paul Celan among many others. (Oates Confronting Head-on the Face of the Afflicted 32)
Her point is simple. The point of much art is to bring about a discussion (verbal or non-verbal, between one person or more) about the condition of being human. Truth and reality is something that the artist has searched to create in their works for millennia. So, is actually achieving putting some realities into your work taking away from the art? Does blurring reality and art rob it of its usefulness as art? I think it’s clear, she is saying no. She is arguing that by achieving a level of truth and intimacy in their work that all of these “artists” have been able to tap into exactly what we search for in art. We search for something to move us.
I have not seen Bill T. Jones “Still/Here,” therefore, I cannot comment on the work (I believe all people should refrain from speaking on things that have not seen or experienced). However, I do think it’s possible that his performance managed to reach a level of truth which could have caused such an extreme emotional experience in his audience as to make many uncomfortable and many others elated. I find, on the other hand, that it’s possible that many others may have felt manipulated and force-fed ideas or feelings of pity that they felt to be disingenuous. However, I think the discussion of his work, or any work, should be on the merits of it, because no matter what I think, or Croce or Oates thinks. It is art; no matter how real, primitive, elaborate, mundane, exciting, or mass produced. Discuss these qualities. Stop trying to be the authority to define the indefinable. Croce had one thing absolutely correct. She was “Discussing the Undiscussable,” because her discussion was an attempt at laying the final word at defining something that is indefinable. Is it art or is not art? That is undiscussable.