19

To the Fairest Shows the Dangers of Lazy Artist Statements

Written By Jeremy Abernathy on May 25, 2012 in Reviews

All photos by John E. Ramspott.

There was a curious disconnect between expectations built up before Sunday’s event and the actual experience of To the Fairest: An Allegorical Adventure Sport at Atlanta Streets Alive. For now, let’s call it a “happening”—since that word’s history of disorganized flower-child revelry nicely suits what I witnessed—but also because it’s the most generous way of describing what most certainly was not an artistic work of substance.

Of course, this all would have been perfectly fine if the organizers had been more careful in accurately managing expectations. The experience was pleasant, if treated purely as a light weekend diversion.

The happening’s leader was Evan Fillon, a local punk rocker and aspiring actor/playwright, who arrived onsite wearing the black and white stripes of a referee outfit, his red hair tossed about wildly up top and pulled into a small ponytail behind. His crew included a big cardboard robot, complete with spray-on-silver pincers and buzz saw, and a handful of conspirators wearing everything from a red evening dress to striped athletic shorts, a ballerina’s tutu, and frizzy rainbow-colored wigs.

It was just one of several attractions at Atlanta Streets Alive, a festival that celebrates the urban environment by closing specific city streets for the enjoyment of pedestrians and bicyclists. To the Fairest convened twice that afternoon, at 3:00 and 5:00, at the intersection of Washita and North Highland avenues in Inman Park.

Before I continue describing the event, try clearing your mind for a minute and imagining the scene described by the artist statement. This was emailed to the press and posted on the Streets Alive website in early May:

“TO THE FAIREST: An Allegorical Adventure Sport

“WonderRoot has teamed up with performance artist/rockstar Evan ‘Snake the Body’ Fillon to create an interactive performance spectacle for the Atlanta Streets Alive festival on May 20th 2012.
 Mr. Fillon has worked with a diverse cast of artists from many disciplines to create an allegorical anarcho-poetic adventure sport called ‘καλλίστῃ’ (pronounced: kallistēi) or, ‘To the Fairest’…a reference to the golden apple of Eris and the mythological episode that led to the Trojan War.
 The performance invites festival-goers to either join a team and play ball with the artists or cheer from the sidelines as spectators of the chaotic ballgame.
 The game resembles a fusion of kickball, dodgeball, competitive dance, basketball, and trivia. The artists have devised a fixed set of rules as well as a process for changing, re-interpreting, and flat-out breaking said rules. The game will be refereed by Evan Fillon, frontman of the local sarcadelic punk band The Dandyls.”

How accurately does the statement match what actually went down on Sunday? Does it sufficiently prepare the art-going public to understand and appreciate WonderRoot’s contribution to the street festival? Was it necessary to include the pronunciation for the ancient Greek “καλλίστῃ” and other pretentious factoids?

Although the description “allegorical adventure sport” suggests some rich possibilities for performance, you could easily capture the action by saying “an ironic game of kickball with sweaty strangers in costumes gesticulating and loudly yelling non sequiturs.” I noticed nothing related to the Trojan War or the mythic Judgment of Paris mentioned in the statement above. On the whole, the event had nothing to say: no narrative and no concepts, other than a goofy, vaguely circus-esque atmosphere.

During an email exchange with another BURNAWAY writer last week, the director’s comments suggested that some last-minute changes might have altered the group’s creative course. “As for the mythological idea, that played in a lot more during our early sessions, talking about conflict and chaos, and heavy stuff like peace on earth and political harmony,” wrote Evan Fillon. “Honestly, though, trying to tell a story always seemed to come out really cheesy, so we’ve maintained hints and allusions to the Judgment of Paris story, but those are just little nuggets to be discovered by whoever might recognize them.”

Whatever their reasons, the group’s efforts resulted in a nonperformance: a somewhat entertaining, somewhat annoying occasion stripped bare of artistic content altogether. It was an unflattering absence of meaning, amplified by the low-budget and amateurish quality exuded by ragtag costumes and props.

Below I’ve rewritten the artist statement to illustrate what I mean. Perhaps this presents a more accurate, less pretentious description of Sunday’s activity:

“Creative Kickball with WonderRoot

“Please join WonderRoot for a friendly game of free-style, free-form kickball organized by Evan Fillon, also known as the frontman of the local band The Dandyls. Fillon has worked with an informal group of friends to develop an alternate version of the game. Like regular kickball, it retains the baseball-diamond shape and basic structure for scoring points by running bases and throwing the ball to tag someone out. But there’s a twist: the referee and players are allowed to deviate from the rules on a whim. Participants can insert a theatrical song and dance in place of kicking the ball—and pretty much anything else as long as it’s in the spirit of fun. Not sure how to play? Just look to your fellow contestants for a cue.”

I should clarify that I appreciate the difficulty of organizing public art in uncertain conditions. The exact location for To the Fairest wasn’t known until the week before the event, and even then, it was tucked away at least a mile south of the festival’s center. Several members of the public joined the game—a genuine success for an event intended to be interactive—although results could have been better.

The location also created tight boundaries; the game required more space than was available, blocking the intersection and spilling onto all four street corners. There was nowhere for curious spectators to comfortably line up, observe while gathering courage to join in, or speak with someone to learn more. The space discouraged engagement as newcomers had only two choices: stop now and observe from a weird angle, or keep walking and disruptively forge right through the middle of the action.

There’s a tendency for artists to overcompensate for lack of resources by adopting a reality-curbing bravado. I’ve seen this attitude from young local groups such as Dodekapus, Back Pockets, Living Walls, and Saïah with varying degrees of success. A self-hypnotizing propaganda takes over, hoping that if you repeat how “amazing!” or “insane!” an event is going to be, somehow it will come true.

I don’t fault the organizers of To the Fairest for forces beyond their control, and I place great value on creative experimentation, even when it fails. But there comes a time when everyone needs some clarity. Come on: get real.


Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

Category: Reviews |
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • James McConnell

    “The game resembles a fusion of kickball, dodgeball, competitive dance,
    basketball, and trivia. The artists have devised a fixed set of rules as
    well as a process for changing, re-interpreting, and flat-out breaking
    said rules.”

    Sounds like Calvinball

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=303658 Nikita Gale

    Jeremy, I think you’ve done a great job of addressing an issue that has been plaguing the emerging scene in Atlanta for years. Hopefully, people will be able to use this as motivation for making work that is more self-aware and thoughtful.

  • http://www.grownunknown.com/ Jessica Blankenship

    Thanks for finally offering some #realtalk on one of way too many over-hyped, under-executed events that amount to little more than a public iteration of a normal afternoon at the Big House. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100001175097108 Jared Christopher

    Jeremy – this kind of open, constructive, but to the point criticism is something that a maturing art-community interested in exploration and development sorely required. Thank you for being pragmatic, honest, and openly critical. We need more reviews like this.

  • http://www.grownunknown.com/ Jessica Blankenship

    Another thought: As much as I agree with this article, the one thing that bothers me is that this has all been true for a long time. But no one wanted to say it out loud, although it was said A LOT behind closed doors. While I’m glad it’s being written about now, let’s not take a good example of “waiting until an opinion is ubiquitous enough to consider safe to say out loud” and then calling it brave. The reason for the widespread approval of this article is also the source of its failure: we’ve all been thinking and saying this for a long time now. What would have been bold would have been to publish it when it was equally true, but not nearly as popular of a sentiment to express. Is that the best we can hope for in Atlanta? Waiting a year to make sure everyone agrees with criticizing something before having the nerve to do so publicly? 

  • Cameron

    Here we go – more claptrap from the pundits.

     

    What could have been a sensible and informed article is
    tarnished by the usual lazy criticism motivated by scene-driven hate and art
    paternalism. The evidence is almost immediate – in the first paragraph, one can
    already sense the hidden vitriol lurking behind this tossed off comment -
    “For now, let’s call it a “happening”—since that word’s history of
    disorganized flower-child revelry nicely suits what I witnessed.”

     

    Well thank you for this completely patronizing summary! For
    more on Happenings, try reading the main source of collective wisdom,
    wikipedia, – “Kaprow’s piece 18 Happenings in 6 Parts (1959) is commonly
    cited as the first happening, although that distinction is sometimes given to a
    1952 performance of Theater Piece No. 1 at Black Mountain College by John Cage,
    one of Kaprow’s teachers in the mid-1950s. Cage stood reading from a ladder,
    Charles Olson read from another ladder, Robert Rauschenberg showed some of his
    paintings and played wax cylinders of Édith Piaf on an Edison horn recorder,
    David Tudor performed on a prepared piano and Merce Cunningham danced. All
    these things took place at the same time, among the audience rather than on a
    stage. Happenings flourished in New York City in the late 1950s and early
    1960s. Key contributors to the form included Carolee Schneemann, Red Grooms,
    Robert Whitman, Jim Dine Car Crash, Claes Oldenburg, Robert Delford Brown,
    Lucas Samaras, and Robert Rauschenberg.”

     

    That is the accepted history of the word. With a pedigree of
    artists as diverse and qualified as this, why the sideways snipe at the format?
    The truth becomes obvious when the reviewer closes out his article -
    referencing The Back Pockets, Dodekapus, Living Walls, and Saiah as secondary
    culprits. What do they have to do with this event (or review)? Nothing of
    course. And of course we have Miss Blankenship dragging the Big Haus into this
    in the comments section. Got to make sure we have all our ducks in a row.

     

    The so-called artist statement you posted (also known as a
    press release to normal humans) is not that different in content than the
    reworded, underwritten version supplied here by the reviewer (thanks Dad),
    except that the conceptual element was excised. The artist changed his vision.
    So what. If the piece sucks, say so. If you want to be critical, back it up.
    What exactly do you have against:

     

    a) Happenings or any other diverse and creative medium

    b) Other performance artists in town such The Back Pockets,
    Dodekapus, and Saiah

    c) Hubris in the arts

     

    As for the quote below (the one piece of actual critique) -
    remove the word unflattering, and the review could be about the events
    unequivocal success, depending on your aesthetic allegiance.

     

    “It was an unflattering absence of meaning, amplified
    by the low-budget and amateurish quality exuded by ragtag costumes and
    props.”

     

    This sentence could fit into a somewhat lazy review of a
    Ryan Trecartin piece, or any other number of world famous working artists.
    There is nothing wrong with low-budget. Get yer head out of your arse. There is
    nothing wrong with absence of meaning. Go read a book.

     

    How about you “Get Real” with your reviews,
    instead of playing art police? No one wants you to reframe and rewrite what
    other working artists are doing. Stop firing off half-baked polemics against
    “inflated” language. Instead, do your job as a critic. Got something
    to say about this kind of work that just WON’T GO AWAY in Atlanta? First step
    might be accepting the vibrant and ebullient attitude that is an essential part
    of the Atlanta creative scene – a scene that revels in inflated language and
    conceptual mash-ups. Such exaggerated language is definitely part and parcel of
    the aesthetic of dreamers like Evan The Snake the Body, Dodekapus, The Back
    Pockets, Saiah, the kind people at Living Walls, and of course WonderRoot,
    among others. And their language and their style isn’t going away by you
    whisking your art fairy wand as an arbiter of how or how not to organize a
    happening or performance piece or anything related.

     

    Don’t misunderstand. I have no doubt that there is cogent
    criticism to be made about Evan’s piece, but it is found nowhere in this
    article. I would love more than anything someone critically reflecting on what
    Evan and many of these other artists are doing – for instance, whether they can
    even be grouped together. Perhaps there IS something that ties them together
    conceptually, and maybe there really IS a strong thought that critiques the
    conceptual framework for these types of events. But it isn’t found here.
    Instead, it is painfully obvious that this review is an exercise in drive-by
    snipping, with you listing your “usual suspects” of art delinquents
    at the end (and then you helpfully tagged their names to this outrageous
    article which has nothing to do with them). Also obvious – you witnessed about
    12 minutes of the performance.

     

    Bravo.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=303658 Nikita Gale

    I honestly think that Jeremy makes a good point when discussing managing expectations. You can’t dangle a sexy artistic statement like that in front of people and then give us something that is, in fact, not sexy according to everyone except those who are closely involved with the creators. I should also acknowledge that most of us who are commenting here represent a conflict of interest to some degree. Cameron, I don’t know you, but based on your vehement response to this article, I have to assume you are closely affiliated with WonderRoot or the Back Pockets or both of them.

    So “Happenings” are events that date back to the 50s? If that’s the case, they would be just a little outdated at this point, no? Also, comparing The Fairest to an event featuring John Cage and Rauschenberg is a little more than a stretch. I’d consider that analogy a product of the “reality-curbing bravado” referenced in the article. Defending it is fine. Maybe the article was a little passionate, and it got a little personal. It represents years of silently smiling and clapping and patting people on the back for trying, but we all have to take that next step in improving our crafts. WonderRoot is an organization that helps artists who are just getting started, so I can understand how this review could be seen as a little harsh since it is targeting indEveryone can do better, but we can only get there if we are pushing each other. Atlanta is too small for art beef and bickering, so let’s get it together, guys! Instead of bitching about ONE critique, figure out how to become better artists and develop coherent concepts.

  • Themichaelmunoz

    I agree with everyone.

  • Jared Christopher

    To put this in perspective – having spent countless hours and money on showing work in January – and then receiving the worst kind of criticism – which was absolutely none at all, was honestly heartbreaking on a very fundamental level. Taking criticism personally demonstrates how self conscious our art community appears to be – even in honest assessment of other artists work. Likely one of the reasons a significan number of serious artists leave Atlanta.

  • evan

    a few things: 1) there is a difference between a press release and an artistic statement. A press release goes out weeks before a performance with some information about the artists, the project, etc. An artist’s statement accompanies a completed work and is a way for an artist to offer some words to frame the piece for an audience. This performance was poorly framed, but so is this article. Judging a performance based on how well it matches the publicity associated with it is one thing, but equating that to an artists statement is irresponsible, and that disappoints me.  2) besides the Greek allusions (which I explained were cut in a follow-up with you guys) what other “pretentious factoids” are you talking about? 3) low-budget?! no artistic substance?! who are you people? seriously…I’m not going to pretend this performance wasn’t disappointing, Sure there was an all-over-the-place aesthetic going on, we were working with a limited budget and yeah, a lot changed from the time the first bit of copy went off to the press, but this attitude of scape-goating a low-budget performance that was meant to take place in the middle of a bicycle parade and entertain children and adults alike, and snubbing your nose at its lack of substance is poor form. I’m at least certain you saw more of the performance than #Blankenship, but if you can’t draw any meaning from a somewhat entertaining, somewhat annoying game that one must either disruptively forge through or observe from a weird angle, you must not be paying attention to American culture. Did you miss the Pinata-ball? The potato-peeling in jail?  The existential trivia questions at second base? That stuff was artistic as shit. 

  • N. Willow

    While I agree that the criticism shouldn’t be taken personally and can only make is grow more successful as an art community, I’m not sure how I feel about the article being tagged as, “fail!” and “failure.” And while ATL may be too small to be having art beefs and shit talk, that’s going to happen regardless, especially since we have new and fairly smaller art scene here. Although I do understand being fairly new in organizing these events and immediately getting your balls busted in a sense is disheartening, those involved should gain motivation from this to produce something not only others can appreciate and understand more fully, but most importantly produce something that fulfills yourself while making improvements.

  • Jon Ciliberto

     Burnaway has in the past few days posted two articles which spend significant time considering artist statements. This strikes me as analogous to making a large thrust of a book review the consideration and criticism of its dust jacket “About the Author”, or to a Consumer Reports article on a new car examining in detail its advertising campaign.

    If your writers are seeking information on the person who made the work, then the journalistic course is: ask that person some questions, go to the source. Criticism  of an artist statement without making some further effort is lazy journalism.

  • Jeremyhuff8

    Come on, Nikita – aren’t you affiliated with BurnAWAY in some sort of fashion?  I don’t know who Cameron is either, but you just made it even more personal by pointing out how the comments are biased. 

    I agree with the person who said they got the worst critique ever – silence.  I’ve seen several glowing articles for Nikita on BurnAWAY while others work very hard and there’s usually not even a whisper.

    (Nikita, don’t get me wrong – I don’t know you, I love your work!  But, making it personal is all this is.  I think you bringing your voice in this twice only makes it worse…Jeremy doesn’t need standing up for, he’s doing just fine!)

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Johnathan-Welsh/503385560 Johnathan Welsh

    If I could eloquently put into words my process of making art and its significance to the world then I would not be a painter. I would be a writer. Just because someone’s art does not match the words used to describe it does not mean that its value should be diminished. If someone were to offer you a can of Coke that was instead filled with lemonade would you not still have your thirst quenched? No one has even touched on the fact that artist statements are mostly intellectually sounding garbage that we feel pressured to trump up for the sake of trying to brand ourselves as a sort of superior being that has some deep meaningful understanding of the universe.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=303658 Nikita Gale

    Hi Jeremy,

    Thank you for your comment. I am on the board of BurnAway. It’s clearly stated on the website and in the footer of any article where I am mentioned on the site. In my last comment, I said that “I should also acknowledge that most of us who are commenting here represent a conflict of interest to some degree.” The use of “us” there means that I included myself in that statement, so I apologize if that was unclear. What I hope to get across here is that I am commenting on this article as one of many Atlanta artists who understands that a healthy, progressive arts community needs critical discussion and dialogue to move forward, not as someone who is standing up for anyone on the staff at BurnAway.

  • Jeremy Abernathy

    Hello everyone,

    I have specific responses for Johnathan W., but first I’d like to thank everyone for sharing your passionate comments. Our arts culture is bigger than any one person, and I always try to write with that in mind. Please continue using this space for respectful debate, to scratch out new ideas and let others know what’s on your mind.

    @ Johnathan Welsh -
    You said, “If I could eloquently put into words my process of making art and its significance to the world then I would not be a painter.”

    I completely appreciate this sentiment. Choosing to identify as an artist is a statement of self and how you interact with the world. The same goes for me: if I were completely satisfied with life as an experience of words or numbers or logic, then I wouldn’t be here. Art contains my primary modes of entering the world: through image, story, and dream. Because of my inclinations, it’s hard for me to relate to the majority of people on this planet, but I feel the strongest when I can connect through some sort of bridge.

    You also said, “… artist statements are mostly intellectually sounding garbage that we feel pressured to trump up for the sake of trying to brand ourselves as a sort of superior being …”

    I agree with you! I agree that many artist statements are overly concerned with establishing intellectual credentials, to the extent the words stop bearing a relationship to the art. I also agree that this “overselling” tendency is the result of pressure, namely a kind of insular academic “art school” mentality. Colleges aren’t the only culprits, by a long shot, but this is the best name I can find for the attitude I’m trying to overturn.

    I also take issue, however, with the tendency to undervalue artist statements, to the extend that nobody cares what they write and treats it as an empty, perfunctory requirement. I think your analogy is decent — “If someone were to offer me a can of Coke that was instead filled with lemonade would you not still have your thirst quenched?” — but I disagree with your conclusion. The question gives priority to the artist’s private practice at the expense of the audience.

    If you hand us a bait-and-switch (even if it’s accidental), what’s to convince us to come back to look at your artwork again? How do we plan to reach people who are:
    1. *not a social in-crowd (friends and artistic peers)
    2. *not a professional in-crowd (aspired colleagues, people we look up to and want to impress for our career)

    There are plenty of smart people in the world worth reaching who didn’t go to art school. All they require is a bit of down-to-earth context.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Johnathan-Welsh/503385560 Johnathan Welsh

    Thanks for the response Jeremy. I am also guilty of believing that if you need an artist statement for someone to understand what you have created then it is not art. But art today has become so much more than what it started out being so perhaps some insight is worth having. I am still on the fence about it. I would also say that there is a strange phenomenon within the art world where we are encouraged to always make art for ourselves but that art is expected to be shared with a larger audience. And not only shared but have value to the audience as well. I can tell you from experience that it is one of the most distressing aspects of art making today. It will paralyze you.

  • Jeremy Abernathy

    @2081bdbbab58817b46aa34bfbfead889:disqus  Jon Ciliberto -

    I’ve given your comment a good deal of thought over the weekend, and, yes, I believe you’re right in that we should clarify that artist statements shouldn’t be the primary source of judgment, for writers or viewers in general. If I’ve given the impression that I think a critic’s job is to police the text written by artists, I apologize for the confusion.

    You wrote:
    “This strikes me as analogous to making a large thrust of a book review the consideration and criticism of its dust jacket ‘About the Author’”

    The real issue at stake is this: How does an artist understand and talk about their work, and how is that understanding shared with the audience? (Plus: How much information is too much, in that it overly constricts the pleasant freedom to subjectively experience the work of others?) This may or may not require a written text; appreciating great art does not absolutely require a detailed premeditated explanation.

    I think your analogy of a book’s dust jacket is a good start, but I think it misrepresents my process. I can’t speak for other writers, but my practice begins with my personal experience of the work. I always include secondary evidence to flesh out and give context to my immediate reactions — which can include artist statements, but often skips them over as less significant — but I do this holistically and not at the expense of what I experience in the moment. I put a great deal of work into considering the facts and checking sources, so I wouldn’t characterize it as “lazy” either.

    So, although I stand by this review and my position expressed above, I
    apologize if my tone sounds paternalistic, or if I’ve overstated the importance of just one piece of the puzzle.

    I should also disclose now that, as a new service project, BURNAWAY has started developing a series of workshops for artists who want help writing their statements — but I have deliberately recruited an outside instructor not affiliated with our publication. Nell Ruby (a practicing artist and professor at Agnes Scott College) will be the discussion leader, and part of our plan is to facilitate peer feedback between artists, rather than taking a one-way didactic approach.

    I hope that we all can continue having constructive conversations after all this heat.

  • Jeremy Abernathy

    To Jon Ciliberto,

    I’ve given your comment a good deal of thought over the weekend, and, yes, I believe you’re right in that we should clarify that artist statements shouldn’t be the primary source of judgment, for writers or viewers in general. If I’ve given the impression that I think a critic’s job is to police the text written by artists, I apologize for the confusion.

    You wrote:
”This strikes me as analogous to making a large thrust of a book review the consideration and criticism of its dust jacket ‘About the Author’”

    The real issue at stake is this: How does an artist understand and talk about their work, and how is that understanding shared with the audience? (Plus: How much information is too much, in that it overly constricts the pleasant freedom to subjectively experience the work of others?) This may or may not require a written text; appreciating great art does not absolutely require a detailed premeditated explanation.

    I think your analogy of a book’s dust jacket is a good start, but I think it misrepresents my process. I can’t speak for other writers, but my practice begins with my personal experience of the work. I always include secondary evidence to flesh out and give context to my immediate reactions — which can include artist statements, but often skips them over as less significant — but I do this holistically and not at the expense of what I experience in the moment. I put a great deal of work into considering the facts and checking sources, so I wouldn’t characterize it as “lazy” either.

    So, although I stand by this review and my position expressed above, I apologize if my tone sounds paternalistic, or if I’ve overstated the importance of just one piece of the puzzle.

    I should also disclose now that, as a new service project, BURNAWAY has started developing a series of workshops for artists who want help writing their statements. I should also point out ** that I have deliberately recruited an outside instructor not affiliated with our publication. Nell Ruby (a practicing artist and professor at Agnes Scott College) will be the discussion leader, and part of our plan is to facilitate peer feedback between artists, rather than taking a one-way didactic approach.

    I hope that we all can continue having constructive conversations after all this heat.