The book arts...Yikes.

Just like printmaking, or ceramics, or really any medium, once you get sucked into a certain medium and start calling yourself a book artist, or a printmaker, you've taken a big step towards ghetto-izing yourself.

But unlike printmaking, or ceramics or whatever, where I can find myself appreciating the craft in something, I think I've found the book arts to almost be completely devoid of truly interesting work. This has been a slow process since I've been here at the scuola in Venice- not just because of looking at a lot of student work, but that I haven't been able to find anything good for them to follow. It seems most book art follows these four paths/pitfalls, which conveniently begin with the same letter. I will not be referring to them as "The Four C's of Bad Books." I just won't.

(Before I go further, you might think that this is a strange posting for a blog about influences, but I am interested in writing about both positive and negative influences. I will admit it is easier to write about work you don't like that you do, or at least it's easier to take that stand... I'm working on that.)

Crafty- these are the books far too concerned with techniques, and showing off certain binding methods or materials used. Usually the content is incidental.

Clever- the choices made for binding, materials, etc, are made in consideration to the main idea with the book, but in a silly way, maybe involving a pun. The actual reason for the book being made is unclear, the idea seems completely random- if it wasn't an assisgnment for a class, it could have been.

Conceptual- books made with the "idea first" though most book artists have terrible, terrible ideas. There should be little or no craft involved in this, so none of that gets in the way- maybe a mix of dry photography with equally dry text.. Ed Ruscha is generally the first to work this way, but is a bad example for students to follow, sort of like Cezanne and composition. Most of these books will be cold and impersonal.

Corny- clearly the worst of the bunch- these books would claim to be first about the idea, but are also considered personal. Thus, because it's personal, you shouldn't think poorly of the artist's efforts. Topics of choice include political issues, issues with race or gender (this work can be considered twice as worse off the bat if the artist is not of the particular race or gender), or anything you could consider personal. These are topics that have been well handled in literature and really most artistic media- there's just something about book artists that make dealing with this material (i.e. material that can easily turn corny) just bad. At least the crafty work is keeping the bar low...

I think what also becomes an issue is the assumption of book artists that people will add weight to their work because it is a book, people read and learn from these things, and so they will think they should with an artist's book.

William Kentridge

Kentridge seems to be one of the ubiquitous artists in the last couple of years, everyone seems to cite him as an influence, or in liking his work- I am no exception, though I wouldn't go as far as to say everything he's done has been stunning. In particular, I'm thinking of the videos in the Italian pavilion in this year's Biennale- these were drawing animations which also include image of himself, as the artist in his studio, drawing and erasing himself, tearing drawings of himself up (to playing them in reverse to remake himself), in loops on all the walls. Something interesting there, I think in a way a homage to "the artist" but a little too self-aggrandising for me. One thing that always comes into play with his work is the amount of tedious work, and his drawing skill, but what interests me the most of the sense of pacing, and the potential narratives with the ordinary man (Felix Teitlebaum) and the businessman (Soho Eckstein) and the possibilities of complexity within the work. "I am interested in a political art, that is to say an art of ambiguity, contradiction, uncompleted gestures and uncertain ending - an art (and a politics) in which optimism is kept in check, and nihilism at bay."

But this biennale (and also the video sold at other Kentridge exhibitions) seem intended to provide a glimpse behind the curtain, but end up far too distracting from the work. Maybe it's my own distaste for self-promotion, or maybe he's been hanging out with Bruce Nauman and Matthew Barney too much, but I am eager to see new work without the gimmicks (playing with a live orchestra in Central Park, for one) or not being diverted by too many "side" projects (the puppet theater, the live-action films with drawings- Roger Rabbit, anyone?)

And maybe less "artist in action" shots like the one below...



I've noticed on the net a lot of prints being offered up to- maybe now is the time for Kentridge to cash in, but I wonder if it's getting to me a little too much, perhaps even for him. I can't imagine doing singular prints or drawings holds that much interest for him- or again, maybe hanging out with Barney?



Not to kick on him too much, but the films, particularly "weighing...and wanting" have so much power to them, that the rest of the work that doesn't measure up to that is pretty disappointing.

Working with influences

I think the most obvious thing about the things I look at, listen to, read, etc, is that there is something attractive about the work at first, and then there is something that lets me stay and explore the work more- there isn't a particular type of work that is more attractive to me than other work.

But in general, my relatitionship with these works isn't emulation- in fact, I am usually also unsettled but most work, in that it comes up short- I think this dissatisfaction is what drives me to make my own work, that whatever I'm making will satisfy what I am looking for. Someone had asked Eugene Chadrourne why he makes the music he does, and his answer was "because no one else is."

A good portion of my time is taken up with the search for new art, new music, new things to read. This consumption time is offset with the production in my studio, somewhere in between being the processing of this.

Another thought is thinking about influences as looking at them for what is missing, not what is there- I think when I was in undergrad, I remember making work that was very derivitive of Rauschenberg, Cornell, etc, looking at what I liked and emulating it. Looking at that work now, it seems really derivitive, but I also think I really liked the work of Rauschenberg and Cornell, and was trying to figure it out, instead of trying to do so as an art historian. So maybe not great work, but trying to find a voice through someone else's work- at some point you realize this and stop...

So now, I think, while there are things about people's work I really like, more often I'm aware of what's missing, and try to address that in my work. An example would be when I was in Berlin- with the art forum and other side events, I saw thousands of pieces of work, but very little of it seems to have everything I would like to see in work- in fact, by looking at so much work, it made seeing what was absent much more obvious. It definitely made it obvious what was trendy...

Okay, this is a little rambly, but I thought I'd get the ball rolling...

Why a second blog?

So why a second blog? I had thought of writing more about art, music, literature, etc in the first blog, Accumulation, but it was getting a little confusing and then it became something I've ignored keeping up with. So, given I will be travelling a bit in the next 6 weeks, looking at a lot of new work, I thought I should keep everything out and accessible, so I can keep track as I go from place to place. I would also like to keep up and write about things I always seem to go back to. So, to work...