Abitofarant.
Art-making in academia is pseudo-transgressive, and is boring, tired, over-thought, and ultimately irrelevant.
When art is made in a non-academic, ‘real life’ context, there’s no ‘critical criteria’ – it is what it is, there is no fanfare of its status, and is enjoyable to see and experience. When art is promoted with self-appointed hierarchy, awards and critical importance, it is a turn off, but we are encouraged to judge it on these trumpeted credentials and not on the art.
I wrote this yesterday, maybe because I was a bit tired but there is something irritating me about the divide that has occurred between art in/from academia; all that research, discussion and justifying of whatever is so important; as opposed to art made in a public-life context, out-of-academia, just being playful, creative and non-judgmental.
As I’m now out of academia, I feel the divide even more. Which is actually a good thing.
When encountering art out with academia (meaning work or projects which are not announced as such) it is what it is. I can sense the creativity, collaboration and enjoyment that someone has had in making, and exhibiting their work. I don’t really care where it is to be seen and experienced; on the street, in collective space, in a commercial gallery, or in a publicly-funded or museum context. It’s all good.
When encountering art which comes from the academic context, instantly I’m not judging what I see but what I interpret from its context of self-importance. Which leads me to have a nauseous feeling of disinterest. It’s all not good.
I actually love Leonor Antune’s art, btw.
Humph; tbc…
Iain Irving 