Feedback is an open forum for readers to share
any comments and insights relevant to art practice in South Africa.
We reserve the right to edit all submissions.
From: Rat Western
Date received: March 19
Subject: Inevitable rebuttal
Tell me, Michael Smith, do you deliberately misunderstand me for the sake of fuelling your own rather tangential argument or are you honestly that dim? Let me assume both and elaborate, not because I have been enjoying what has become an incredibly boring debate incredibly quickly but, in either your failure to comprehend or your willingness to twist what I say, you have managed both to misrepresent my point of view and fail to answer much of what I originally asked. So for you, I will explain rather pedantically much of what has already been said, to set some matters straight.
I can accept that, in your original opinion piece, there were many areas of discussion which you could not explore in depth due to the limitations of the space. The parameters of intended discussion were set down in the beginning paragraph - 'the concept of criticism and its place in the visual art environment' - and then you went on to 'Furthermore, good criticism should exhibit a willingness to grapple with the real issues of power'. Now, whilst you may not have had time or space to explore matters of economics, would you not agree, as many would, that economics is at the heart of power in the material world in which we live? This is not an unrelated side matter, yet you did not mention it, even in passing.
Then, with regard to what is so often termed 'incest' in the little world in which we practice, you missed my point entirely. I did not say that people only work with those they know, but that they are more likely to, based on past productive experiences. Despite how problematic you believe this state of affairs to be, you contradict your view by going on to demonstrate my point rather nicely when you cite Brenden Gray (with whom you worked on the original opinion piece) as an emerging artist in an experimental space whom you have reviewed. Should I see this as a potentially successful and productive relationship or should I write it off as, how you described it, 'myopic nepotism'?
I wonder why it is that you see the term 'snobbery' as either quaint or insulting. The arena in which both you and I work is elitist, and eliticism and snobbery can be interchangeable depending on where you stand. I, because of what I practice, am a snob and so are you. It is not always something of which to be ashamed. As you rightly point out, visual art (and here I assume you mean the 'snob' variety although we might lapse into the relative merits of cosmos painting and kudu on brass) can and does change the way people think.
I chose to use the term 'conceptual art', in a list of other terms which were not necessarily interchangeable, to attempt to describe aspects of the field of expression in which the kind of art criticism which we are speaking about functions. I did not use the term 'contemporary practice' as it is in fact fuzzy. 'Contemporary', when used to mean current or fashionable, may be describing words for things which fall outside of what ArtThrob usually examines.
I'm so glad you noticed the misspelling of avant-gardism. Now perhaps you'll go back to your original opinion piece (paragraph 9, line 3 to be precise) and put a nice little [sic] there too. As you can see I cut and paste it directly from your article to use, not only your word, but your spelling. The 'i' came with, as your original word was 'avant-guardism'. ( Oops! I must take the heat here - SubEd) Silly me. Far too subtle.
I did however notice your rather interesting spelling of Homi Bhabha. A 'homie' is something quite different, but the irony did not escape me, especially when you go on to get the wrong end of the stick about why I find terms such as 'black practice' and 'white practice' problematic.
I was in fact not arguing about the necessity of subject position, which I will agree is vitally important, but the fact that 'black practice' and 'white practice' are in fact the particular constructs (yes, 'constructs': a synonym for 'term' or 'expression' as opposed to the Phil101 debate that 'all is construct') which can lead to an erasure of difference. These terms seem set on defining the practice of individuals and their subject identities to matters of race.
Subject position is far more complex than that - gender, age, class, nationality, religion - the list goes on right down to the nitty-gritty that makes one individual and their expressive voice different from the next. Is the proverbial lesbian, black, grandmother in a wheelchair limited to identity expression only in terms of her race? I also find it interesting that you make no mention of what, in our group discussion, Lawrence Lemaoana and Mary Sibande, both black artists dealing with identity and gender subject positions in their work, had to say about how they understand the term 'black practice'. Is it because it did not support your argument?
Then, there is the matter of education, where you tell me I should be careful where I infer blame. This is not a blame game, but a question of accepting responsibility. Yes, I am aware that you, at least, are an educator. So I will ask again, as an educator, what are you specifically doing to encourage those with an economically disadvantaged background going on to pursue a career as an art practitioner?
This is not an accusation, merely a question, and if you are dynamic in this regard then you should speak about it as it encourages others to follow with similar projects. What you fail to recognize is that I too am an educator, which should not matter one way or the other but, as you would have little opportunity to find out, I have been actively involved in encouraging those students who I have taught, in graphic design (individuals with a 9 - 5 job-orientated future in mind, all economically disadvantaged, and all of them black) to respond to calls for artists' proposals, funded residency programmes and to enter emerging artist competitions - the purpose of this being to expose them to options as professional practicing artists.
I would argue with you that the right to debate a topic rests more with the individuals who are active in making changes, however small, to the problems they would debate rather than those who occupy positions of power. Debate without action by the individuals who raise the point of debate is merely whinging which is indulgent and counterproductive.
You fail to remember the initial reason why I brought up what I consider a 'misrepresentation' of your 'constituency' (here read that as your public rather than your electorate). You wrote: 'But what's happening in Jo'burg? Is careerism winning out over any sense of responsibility to the underground? Does an underground even exist?' Are those who are creating and involved in what you call 'underground' spaces of expression not part of you public? Because we did not hire you, does that mean we do not have the right to criticise you?
You go into a long diatribe about the social conscience of your writing, but this was never under debate. Your lack of awareness of, and your failure to engage with informal projects which others elsewhere have considered newsworthy, led you to make your original statement. And perhaps that statement has ensured that those putting in the work no longer form part of your readership.
It takes enough energy to make the art, to provide the platform, to invite the press (and yes we know you get the mails because you sent a reply asking where the pictures were. It says: 'Right click to download Images') and sometimes to write about the art, that there is very little energy left to correct those who write not a bad review, no, but a complete denial that all that effort was ever put in.
Then there is a matter of accuracy to be cleared up regarding Swiss artists Phillipp Gasser (two 'p's by the way) and Bruno Tremblay. How can you review a show you didn't attend? Would it not have been more honest to entitle your piece an interview and include it in the news rather than the reviews section? And you tell me that you missed the opening at The Parking Gallery, well you certainly would have as their show was at the Drill Hall - a fact you knew in October but forgot in March. A faux pas that could be understandable in conversation, but don't you check your facts before you write?
When you chose to write that an 'underground' was not happening in Johannesburg and at the same time you were not attending a number of exhibitions which were not in the most comfortable areas in town, this brought in a question of geography. No, you are not required to 'check the geographic credentials' of the shows you cover. When you state though, that an 'underground' does not exist, I have to ask where you have been looking. It's a cheap shot, I'll admit, to tease someone for being nervous to enter dark unknown streets where crime is a very real fear. It was however an excuse, not a glamorous one, but one can not be too blasé about the dangers. I am however, beginning to realise that it is not fear that leads to your lack of engagement but plain, simple laziness.
How can I say this? Well, let's see, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when you sent me an email requesting me to help you in writing an article on artists' perceptions of an 'underground'. You wanted me to ask a number of artists I may know to send you an email responding to a list of questions. As I thought it was unlikely that many of these artists, who are incredibly busy or lack faith in their writing ability, would respond to you in this way, I set up a meeting with a small number of practitioners who are responsible for initiating or are actively involved in experimental projects. And then, because I know it's hard to take note of what everyone says all the time, I sent you my response to your specific questions.
When the March ArtThrob comes out I look for the article you told us you were planning and what do I see? That you have published my words without the original context, certainly not in the format you described and for which I had written, and without my permission. You may not think that is a big problem but had I known they were to be posted as an isolated article I would have written it very differently. Or perhaps not at all, as it is not my job to do your job for you.
I would also like to point out to you that you misquoted Bronwyn Lace as saying she did not think you should have mentioned artheat. On the contrary, we both feel that it has made a valuable contribution to the power dynamics of art criticism and we have been in fact considering doing a piece on Robert Sloon on SAarts Emerging. What she did in fact say was that she used to read it almost everyday, but then began to visit less frequently as she found some of the articles and much of the comments too parochial. Not something they are unused to hearing and not something we wanted them to change.
Remember, this dialogue was brought about by your denial of and failure to engage with a certain sector of the Johannesburg art scene. Perhaps you feel you have no obligation to that sector and maybe you don't, but you do not have the privilege because of your position to deny it absolutely, nor do you have the power.
This is not professional practice; to appropriate words or misquote individuals. But I believe it has its own punishments, as I for one have little interest in continuing to engage with you. And as for brain farts? They are what we in polite society term wit. Which are marks of a sense of humour. You should try it sometime.
From: Devin Purvis
Date received: March 26
Subject: Art criticism needs to find its yin
Reading the discussions on criticism that have taken place in the last two issues of ArtThrob have lead me to realise that I hold more of a firm view on the subject than I'd previously thought. Before I begin to try and express my opinions it must be stated that I am not an art historian, critic nor the holder of a degree. Having said that I
don't consider myself to be anti-intellectual either.
To a certain extent this is also a letter to myself.
Let's come right out with it: Art criticism and its establishment have become terminally over-intellectualised. You don't have to look far to notice that criticism and interpretation are deeply imbedded within a well-entrenched and preconceived academic construct, a construct so based on intellectual understanding that it cannot
but divorce art from its intuitively creative heart.
We seem hell bent on alienating ourselves from the only tool we have for truly coming to terms with and interpreting our existence, the tool of emotion. And what is art but our attempts to come to terms with the many levels of existence? While it's necessary to develop a language to express and organise thoughts, it is a mistake when the tool becomes the defining bedrock of comment and understanding.
For us to truly grasp expressions of creativity, our understanding cannot originate in the intellect alone but must come from the 'wholeness of being' that is the defining characteristic of humanity. Art criticism needs to pull back from its yang and find its yin.
Perhaps it is the tradition of art criticism to overly intellectualise creativity. Left to its own devices this does no harm, but when it starts to direct the evolution of expression then we have a problem.
The radicals are calling for a de-colonialisation of the mind... To me this means that we need to begin to access the stable heart of our very being, the place that is left unchanged by the specifics of place, culture and context. The only way we can foster a climate friendly to such evolutions of expression is for the art establishment at large - we cannot single out critics - to let go of its rigidly defined yardsticks and open itself up to the full range of human understanding. In doing so we can put logic in its rightful place, as only one half of interpretation. A half that when standing alone is ultimately limited.
Using our emotions as a tool of understanding is possibly our single chance at breaking through the barriers of pre-defined and pigeon holed expression. Maybe what I'm trying to say is that lofty and disconnected intellectualising as a catalyst for the evolution of art is a bit like (and I'm going to be vulgar here) screwing for virginity.
From: Simone Tredoux
Date received: March 18
Subject: Dale Yudelman at the KZNSA
A Grip on Reality
If there are too many contaminants in a river, the fish suffer from oxygen deprivation, leading to disorientation and in some cases death. Readers of poorly researched art critiques suffer similar side effects, when subjected to commentaries written without heed paid to the facts. Inaccurate information-pollution results in confusion, not necessarily life-threatening to its audience in the short term, but offensive nonetheless.
Carol Brown, in her assessment of Dale Yudelman's recent showing of 'Reality Bytes' at the KZNSA Gallery, offers what most would politely call 'ludicrous career advice' to one of South Africa's most talented and seasoned photographers.
As a writer who has followed Yudelman's career closely for the last 10 years, I would like to set the record straight. I stand to correction by Brown, but the title or concept of 'commercial photographer' as mentioned in her review, is intended to apply on the whole to one who works for commercial gain, specifically in the genre of advertising, editorial and photojournalism. There are few great photographers who have not cut their teeth and earned their living in this manner at some point or another. Yudelman can hardly be labelled as a newcomer to the world of art, as she erroneously suggests.
Within a career that spans 30 years, Yudelman has hosted, curated, collaborated and participated in over 70 exhibitions both locally and internationally. This year alone he has been invited to exhibit his work at the prestigious LUMO International Photography Triennial in Finland, participate at PHOTOQUAI Biennale arts festival in Paris as well as other showings in India and the USA. To state that Yudelman has just recently returned from living abroad further amplifies the lack of research that exists in this review. In fact, he has been living, working and exhibiting in Cape Town since 1996.
Hence, Brown's career advice, however well-intentioned, if viewed in relation to the specifics, which I find sorely missing from her disturbing missive, do not correlate with the man's award winning, and currently prolific and successful professional career. I recommend that ArtThrob, clean up its information river, and pay some respect to its already contaminated environment - as suggested in Feedback, Issue No. 113, January 2007 where comments were made on some of its current contributors, who feed the torrent of unprofessional art criticism in South Africa.
In keeping with the current spirit of the information age, Brown could have tried for the purposes of research, the not so rarefied tool, known as the Internet. There she would have discovered a comprehensive account of Yudelman's feats as an artist and photographer. She would have also discovered a 'cyber gallery' of his work that reveals the true progression of his career: one who has earned his stripes and moved with the times.
If Brown's research is anything to go by, it seems plausible that she would not have been able to grasp the true meaning of the profound social statements made in the 'Reality Bytes' show. In saying that the images do not engage the subject in a way that she deems fit, she misses the point; where less attention is paid to form, more attention is given to narrative. Photography, in my opinion, becomes art when it ceases to simply regurgitate reality, but instead serves to help question and create reality and our experience of it. Perhaps, what her perception lacks in this critique is the very thing she bemoans as missing in Yudelman's work. Staying Power.
