|
While Mr. Sherman's paper is insightful and interesting, part of the interest comes from the contradictions presented within the paper itself. In the quote above, he states, 'The living body of work is continually updated through twists and turns." This is quite different than his later positing, just two sentences hence, that, "there must be redundancy of form and a consistency in the method by which disorder is processed into form." While the twists and turns that he may have in mind are simple, and should not be designed to "lose" or confuse followers of the art or artist, those are often not enough to challenge the people who follow art and appreciate, nee expect, the changes and permutations that an artist may undergo in the course of a work of art, not to mention an entire career. It may be true that consistency lends itself to easier understanding, and a simplified "grasping" of the concept of an artist's work, but consistency may also be the cause for stagnation in, and disinterest towards an artist's work. There are, however, some examples that prove the rule. Jean-Michel Basquiat's early graffiti-style artwork, done in and around New York City, was pointed and insightful. It was signed by the artist in the pseudonym "Samo," a combination of "Sambo" and "Same Old Shit." His later work, after his "discovery" by Andy Warhol, was similar, though larger, and informed by the same influences that led him to his earlier work - ethnicity, his personal ethnic background, and abandonment. So, in this case, Mr. Sherman's hypothesis is to some extent supported. Basquiat's work in the later portion of his life continued to flow from his earlier work, but one could see a movement away from earlier influences and toward something deeper and darker, a twisting and turning away from the thread of consistency.
The case of artist David Hockney is different. His work materially spans oils to watercolors to photography to collages to photo-collages that treat a range of topics from family values and appreciation to AIDS awareness and gay relationships. Can it be said, as Mr. Sherman posits, that, because Hockney's work is not linear, because at the core of the work, there is no, "redundancy of form and a consistency in the method by which disorder is processed into form," it is of little use to us, or cannot be appreciated? One would hope that Mr. Sherman was not so short-sighted, nor so close-minded as to rule out the possibility of something else. The artist's only hope for survival is through growth, both personal and professional, where they begin to find their voice, or another, louder, more pressing voice to present what it is that they have come to say. This cannot be achieved through stasis or by inertia alone. Indeed, inertia must be overcome. That means, more often than not, a reversal of direction, or a digression , a change in direction where the artist must choose the road that will allow them to say what they must. Whether this change means they turn back on themselves, or move onto another road or dimension is irrelevant. An artist must follow whatever leads them. Should they pander to popular tastes, and "toe the line," they most often give up something of themselves, something inside them which says that to achieve what it is they want to achieve, they must venture forth, press the boundaries, be confused, be lost, be uncomfortable. Mr. Sherman seems to feel that for an artist's work to be appreciated and found to have value, it must be consistent, follow some set path and be, for lack of a better word, followable. This is untrue. An artist's only obligation is to themselves, to the person they see in the mirror every morning. That is the person to whom they are solely accountable. What that means is that to follow an artist's work through the twists and turns of a winding career, is merely to look to the bottom of each work of art and see who has signed and laid claim to it. Maybe it will be the same artist who was loved and appreciated yesterday, maybe not. And maybe the art piece one loved yesterday will be followed by art work which disgusts one -- both from the very same artist. No matter. You get to choose. And so does the artist. |