“

When art is made new, we are made new with it. We have a sense of solidarity with our own time, and of psychic energies shared and redoubled, which is just about the most satisfying thing that life has to offer... This being so, it is a great exasperation to come face to face with new art and not make anything of it. Stared down by something that we don't like, don't understand and can't believe in, we feel personally affronted, as if our identity as reasonably alert and responsive human beings had been called into question. We ought to be having a good time, and we aren't. More than that, an important part of life is being withheld from us; for if any one thing is certain in this world it is that art is there to help us live, and for no other reason.

~ John Russell (1919 - 2008), New York Times Art Critic. The Meaning of Modern Art: History as Nightmare.

Excerpt from the Toronto Star, Wednesday, July 26, 2017.

By Tim Kelly

Markham residents have beef with huge cow sculpture

Massive chrome sculpture on stilts in Cathedraltown neighbourhood caught many residents by surprise.

Residents of a Markham neighbourhood want a towering cow sculpture installed 10 days ago by the city to just moooove on.

The unhappy people gathered Tuesday night to give local councillor Alan Ho, who voted last year to approve the chrome statue, a piece of their collective mind.

Ho was in huge backtrack mode as resident after resident slammed him for supporting the statue in a large parkette on Charity Cres. in the Cathedraltown neighbourhood. He urged them to gather a petition opposing the artwork and to head to council at its first meeting in September to tell elected officials exactly what they think.

The cow, called Charity, Perpetuation of Perfection, was apparently a prize-winning milker for the donor and the statue is dubbed “Brookview Tony Charity.”

Under intense questioning from residents at the site of the statue, Ho admitted the donation of the statue was valued at $1.2 million.

But he insisted the donation cost the City of Markham and taxpayers nothing.

Residents were udderly unimpressed.

Tammy Armes, a member of the Cathedraltown Ratepayers Association, said the sculpture caught everyone by surprise.

“This is really a shock for us; it’s not a small cow. It does not belong in this community,” Armes said.

Danny Da Silva, who lives right in the sightline of the sculpture, was blunt in his assessment of it: “I hate it. I don’t like to be forced to look at this, but I have to unless I don’t want to come out of my house anymore.

“I think it’s actually kind of disturbing looking. I come from a Christian background and this is actually one of the worst things you can do, is to raise a calf; it’s facing the cathedral. Who’s going to want to buy the house, there’s very little to admire,” he added.

Da Silva suggested it be moved to another location, like the carousel in downtown Markham.

Ho said he believed the statue belonged in another location but that the donor insisted on the current location and council agreed. He said if the statue does get moved it’s not clear whether the donor or the city will have to pay the cost.

NIMBY!

NIMBY is an acronym meaning “Not In My Backyard” - and clearly, not in this Markham neighbourhood. What constitutes “Art” is a matter of perspective.

Let us look at the facts, as presented in this article.

• Last year, local councillor, Alan Ho, voted to approve the installation of a large chrome cow statue in the neighbourhood of Cathedraltown.
• According to Tammy Armes, a member of the Cathedraltown Ratepayers Association, the local residents did not know that this statue was being installed. They were not part of the selection or approval process, and had no opportunity to voice their disapproval.
• According to the councillor, Alan Ho, the artwork has been valued at $1.2 million, and was a donation - no taxpayer money was used to buy or erect the statue.
• The donor was very insistent about the location of the statue.
• The residents have been urged to gather a petition for the removal of the statue from the public park in their neighbourhood.
• If the statue is removed, Councillor Ho is not sure if the donor will pay for the change in location - the city may have to foot the costs, instead.

 NIMBY! Art, in the Eye of the Beholder

In the past two activities of this unit, we discussed how we define "beauty" and "art," with much of the discussion focusing on the notions of subjective taste and perspective.

In the case of the statue, Charity, Perpetuation of Perfection, the local community has been very critical of the artwork, seeing it less like “art” and more like an “eyesore.”

Consider your thoughts about this artwork. Use two or more of the following prompts to guide your response. 

• In this situation, whose definition of “Art” is most valid? The donor who financed it, the council that approved it, or the residents who must live with it on a daily basis?
• As part of his defence of the artwork, Councillor Ho mentions that the statue is worth $1.2 million, and that it cost the taxpayers nothing - including its installation.  Should the monetary value of an object be a deciding factor as to its worthiness as “art?” Should the fact that it was “free” be reason enough to accept and erect the object?
• In addition to the previous question, Councillor Ho has suggested that removal and relocation of the artwork will possibly cost the taxpayers, as the donor was very insistent on placing it in this neighbourhood. Should the threat of possible costs be used to silence the detractors into accepting this statue and ceasing their criticism?
• Hypothesize this: the statue was placed in a public park and approved by a local council. What precedent may be set for public art if critics can have something that does not suit their tastes removed?
• Do you consider the chrome cow to be "good" art or "bad" art? How did you make this determination?  Would you oppose or approve of it if it were installed in your neighbourhood? Can a determination of aesthetic worth be objective, or is it always a matter of perspective? Use your knowledge gained in the two previous activities to justify your responses.
• What impact, if any, would one's own personal religious beliefs have on his/her aesthetic judgement in this case?

Join The Discussion

Who Decides What is Art?

As we discovered in Activity 2 of this unit, defining what makes an object a work of art can be a rather convoluted process. Moreover, who gets to make the judgement is an equally complicated argument. At the heart of this debate is whether “Art” is merely a matter of perspective and a lens of perception.

The Institutional Theory of Art is a theory about the nature of art that holds that an object can only become art in the context of the institution known as "the artworld."

It was Danto who first coined the term, artworld, a term that encompasses the artists, critics, curators, collectors, and art dealers - basically everyone involved in producing, commissioning, presenting, preserving, promoting, chronicling, criticizing, and selling fine art. (Art World_Wikipedia).

Inherent in this definition though, are some obvious issues:

• There is no one universal “artworld.” Instead, there are several overlapping, intersecting “art worlds,” often with their own perception of the world, and subsequently, their own definition as to what qualifies as “Art.”
• A definition that includes the term, “everyone,” does not necessarily mean that every voice is in consensus, or is heard equally. As we have seen in the previous two activities of this unit, historically and currently, some voices and perspectives are ignored or marginalized.

Nevertheless, the concept of an Institutional Theory of Art, first outlined by Danto, has been the theory that all subsequent theories have either supported or rejected, ever since its inception.

For example, George Dickie, in his, Aesthetics: An Introduction, built upon Danto’s idea by stating that a work of art, in the classificatory sense, is:

1. an artifact,  
2. on which some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld) has conferred the status of candidate for appreciation.

Note the inclusion of the words, “persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution” here - indicative of a certain isomorphism(definition:The idea that the similarities of one organization to another, be it the processes or structure, are the result of imitation or independent development under similar constraints; a homogenization around the world through institutionalization.) - which is why there are those who confront the institutionalization of the artworld.

This brings us back to the issue with Charity, Perpetuation of Perfection. Not everyone was in agreement as to the worthiness of the statue to be considered “Art;” however, some people’s opinions were considered more worthy than others.

Arthur Danto and the Brillo Box

In 1964, art critic Arthur Danto visited the Studio Gallery in New York to see an exhibit of Andy Warhol’s Brillo boxes.

That visit changed his life.

It wasn’t that Danto was unfamiliar with Warhol’s work - he had seen the paintings of soup cans and other items from popular culture that Warhol was already notable for - but it was Warhol’s Brillo box sculptures - silkscreened plywood facsimiles of actual Brillo boxes, virtually indistinguishable from the real thing - that gave Danto reason to pause.

Side by side, who would be able to tell the difference between the real Brillo box and the sculpture? And if this was the case, what made one of the boxes an artwork, and the other an ordinary object?

In his 1964 essay, “The Artworld,” Danto offers an explanation:

In a nutshell, what Danto is saying is that for Warhol’s Brillo boxes to be considered “Art,” there had to exist a specific perspective to allow for its inclusion in the definition - the audience must accept a specific theory of art, a way of seeing, to accept the Brillo boxes into their perception of art.

In your opinion, is Danto correct? To accept an object as “Art,” the audience just needs to find a new way of subjectively perceiving based on the prevailing worldview and changes to art theory? Is defining “Art” based entirely on accepting and conforming to whatever is the currently prevailing ideals of Art and Beauty?

Same subject, different periods - but only one would have been accepted as “Art” in the 1600s. So what do you think changed our sense of aesthetics to make the artwork by Bacon equally acceptable as “Art?”

Art Criticism and The Modern Aesthetic

The role of the art critic is to critique art in the context of the current prevailing aesthetic of the status quo. Assisting in the determination of what is Beauty and what is Art are the theories of art that offer the current perspective, or lens, through which the artworld makes these judgements. This interpretation is part of what we know as the Philosophy of Art.

Now, no one is forced to agree with a critic’s judgement, and it is questionable whether one’s criticism can be truly objective when it is often informed by a specific interpretation and understanding of the theories; it is difficult to transcend the worldview that one exists in and see things from a different perspective.

This means that whatever the current aesthetic is, it is the lens through which an art critic will make a judgement as to whether something is, or is not, art.

While there is some room for debate, the current aesthetic through which we judge Art is the legacy left to us from Danto - that of postmodernism(definition:A philosophical movement beginning in the mid-twentieth century. Postmodernism questions the notion of objective truth and posits that many apparent realities are merely social constructs that are subject to change depending on time and place.).

Disputing the Aesthetic of the Status Quo

But what if your artwork goes against the prevailing aesthetic? What if your artwork is deemed “not art” by the critics to whom the public look to validate an object’s worthiness of this definition?

Art, after all, as John Russell pointed out in the Minds On section, is supposed to connect us with a, “sense of solidarity with our own time.” What if you, the artist, are out of step, or a step ahead of your time?

Is your art, still “Art?”

If you have ever studied art history, you will recognize that the periods or movements in art - the “isms” - are often reactions to the previous generation. For example, the focus on the heightened, almost transcendental emotion of the Romanticism period in art (1800 - 1850), was a direct, oppositional reaction to the stoic Neo-Classicism of the mid 1700s (which, in turn, was a reaction to the frothy excessiveness of the Rococo period before it) ... and so it goes ...

 

Romanticism

The Raft of the Medusa, 1818-1819. Théodore Géricault.
Emotional, dramatic, passionate, and in the case of this particular painting, a criticism of classicism in the government’s treatment of powerless civilians. The ideals of solidarity and self-sacrifice present in Neo-Classicism are no longer present here.

 

Rococo

The Swing, 1767. Jean-Honoré Fragonard
Frivolous, playful, witty, and decorative - reflective of the excesses of the court of the King Louis the XV of France.

 

Neo-Classicism

Oath of the Horatii, 1784. Jacques-Louis David
Stoicism, Nationalism, Solidarity - all relevant themes in the period before the French Revolution.

1.  
2.  
3.  

If the philosophical definition of "Art" is based on contemporary values, then the meaning of art is relative to culture and history.  Because it is bound up with culture and history, so too is it deeply connected with the dominant institutions of the day - in this case, the "artworld." This would mean that certain people have greater influence over the definition - the art critics, the art dealers, the curators, and committees that decide what is shown in the galleries - they make that determination. Note that in this scenario, the artists themselves play a part in being able to declare their work as “Art,” their voices are not the loudest. In other words, institutions play a large role in determining what is, or is not, valued as art.

Not all artists are willing to let the status quo make that determination.

To illustrate, here are a few examples from the 19th to 20th centuries, where artists disputed the prevailing aesthetic of the time.

Long Description

Confronting the Prevailing Aesthetic: The Artist’s Manifesto

“

What does one prefer? An art that struggles to change the social contract, but fails? Or one that seeks to please and amuse, and succeeds?

~ Robert Hughes, Australian-born art critic and writer.

Despite being the ones who create the artworks, artists don’t always have an equal voice when it comes to declaring the worthiness of those works to the artworld. Here’s a case in point: the last time one of Vincent Van Gogh’s “sunflower” paintings went to auction was in 1987. Still Life: Vase With 15 Sunflowers sold at Christie’s for 39.9 million dollars, breaking a record for the most money a single artwork has earned. 
Do you know how many paintings Van Gogh sold in his own lifetime?

One. Just one.

The rest of his 900 paintings did not sell or become famous until long after his death. In his lifetime, Van Gogh’s work was not recognized by the artworld, and yet today, he is considered one of the world's most popular painters.

Since the artist is the person who created the artwork, it follows that she or he will take personally any judgement of her or his creation. Therefore, what do you think is more valid, the subjective response of the artist, or the 'informed' perspective of art institutions? Why is the opinion of the institution necessary and/or more valid than the artist?

So artists have been known to fight back, and collectively, make a statement in the form of a “manifesto” in defiance of the institutionalism of art.

A manifesto is a public declaration of the aims, intent, policies, and grievances of a specific group or organization.

Below are a few examples of manifestos created by artists. It is suggested that you read all four examples to be familiar with them, but for the sake of the class discussion, you will need to only focus on one manifesto about which to present your opinions and reasoning.

Guerrilla Girls

In 1984, a group of anonymous women, wearing gorilla masks, picketed the Museum of Modern Art in New York. MoMA was opening a show which claimed to be a definitive survey of contemporary art. But out of the 169 artists featured in the show, only 13 were female. Since then, the Guerrilla Girls have continued to call out the artworld for the exclusion of female artists in their worldview through a series of posters, stickers, and culture jam tactics.

Red Alan's Manifesto

Created by in 2014 by artist, Grayson Perry for the Royal Academy of London, Perry explored some of the questions we have explored in this activity - namely, what gets to be defined as “art?”