The Macho Art World

I considered writing a piece this week relating relationships and art to Valentine's Day, but found myself struggling with it. This was not because I knew that papers and the Internet would already be dripping with pink and chocolate, nor because there's any lack of artists who make love with their subject. Rather, I struggled because I find the art world so inherently macho.

That is not to say that artists themselves are necessarily macho: artists are dreamers and essentially romantic, aspirational people- to even call yourself one and place yourself near the canon of artists before you- is a lofty enterprise. An artist's relationship to his or her ultimate realized self is often just as essential as it is to other people.

David Hockney imagining himself being drawn by Picasso, whom he never met.
Artist and Model, 1973-74. Etching, 22 5/8 x 17 1/4 in., Courtesy of the artist. ©David Hockney. All rights reserved. Courtesy of LACMA

It is also not macho because art prices are soaring and it is still so male-dominated. Even this Thursday the feminist group called "The Guerrilla Girls" called on its members to send a letter to BCAM demanding that the museum reconsider the curation of it's predominantly white male collection.

No, I find being an artist in the art world macho for other reasons. There's a required toughness to stick it out, get to work and put it "out there" -- more exhibitions, more galleries, more museums -- constantly pushing to get on the radar. And the most macho part of all is the need to reach thirty feet inside your own guts for content. Picture young medical students eating pastrami sandwiches around the cadaver they're studying to show it doesn't phase them.

Photographic Painting of Gerhard Richter's daughter Betty

Certainly there are other spheres of the art world that are different. There are painters who paint flowers and sunsets on the weekends. But even within that sphere there are ardent realists who seek to recreate reality down to the molecule. This is especially prevalent in the water color world where first prize winners are often indistinguishable from the photograph it was copied from. Realism is very macho. When my artist friends and I swoon over one of Gerhard Richter's photo paintings, we undoubtedly stalk and make the same noises as young men admiring a red muscle car.

Combine all this machismo with the feminine sensuality of working with paint and color, then the act of being an artist itself forms the ultimate couple.

First Person Artist is a weekly column by artist Kimberly Brooks in which she provides commentary on the creative process and showcases artists' work from around the world. Come back every Saturday for more Kimberly Brooks. You can view all the columns and essays at www.firstpersonartist.com

Comments

[Dave24]

It doesn't matter whether there is bravado or femininity in the artist: the question to ask is: Can you "find" either(or a mix of both) in the work? Biography and the artist's possible intentions are only a single avenue among an infinite amount of possible pathways.

[bointreau]

Perhaps I have missed the point you are making but to me, the word ''macho'' is Spanish for a male mule --- a strong, stupid, stubborn, and sterile creation. Anyone who calls himself a 'macho man' is literally making an azz of himself. Of course, he is not quite as stupid as the women who admire him.

;)

[Hitsong]

I thought Proust was dead. Geez - you guys must have taken speed-typing.

[gladernie]

Um... kind of a weak blog entry. First, it's way too short to treat its subject adequately. And why are toughness and "sticking it out" inherently "macho" qualities? To say that they are implies that women don't have such qualities, and that's certainly far from the case. Or maybe you're not implying that, and have a broader definition of "macho". If so, what is it? You never clarify. And what's with the attempt at analogy with medical students? I don't follow. Also: what's BCAM? Yeah. Kind of weak.

[moderationsmuse]

There's a big difference between artists and the idea of "being an artist." An artist is someone who "creates upon a flat surface, any visible object whatsoever." Whereas the "artist," can be someone of real ability (like Picasso) or it may be a trendy poseur (Damien Hirst) who is without ability and who will eventually go by the wayside. The "art world" is hardly something that even exists. There are all manner of businesses, some large, some small that sell "art." But one would be hard-pressed to find one characterization that fits them all.
Anyone who wants to paint would be wise to learn fundamental skills, study the history of art, have an open mind, and follow one's heart. It's rather like learning a musical instrument. A violinist doesn't expect to master the instrument without playing some scales. Music develops through a process of both serious and inspired work. And so does real painting. But many people are actually enamoured of "being an artist" and have no interest at all in making pictures of things. As to innovation, nothing could be more challenging than to take ideas that have captured the attention of generation after generation of human beings and to make those ideas come to life again.
The greatest and most "revolutionary" art is really the most traditional -- when ideas that participate in a perpetual present tense have real life in them.

[sunzen]

What you are describing is the ego driven artist. The popular culture artist. The little I that thrives on attention, money, recognition, and self absorbtion. I would agree completely with the premiss that it is a difficult process to feed the ego; the void is never full. I have owned my own gallery trying to sell my own work. This endeavor was out of the dream; knowing full well that it would probably fail and of course it did. The two years taught me so much about myself and other people most especially the crookedness in the entire pursuit. The people that want to consume you for their own ego feeding. The people that come dressed up in their shiny armour. (The aegis is not just a missile cruiser in the US navy.) As far as the feminine vs. masculine I regard as a false choice and lies in the realm of politics not art. People often get politics and real creativity mixed up. Yes artists can make political statements but they are not creating they are representations of ego and group think identity issues. Art is in the realm of the feminine it has always been so...if a man draws upon his sensitity to create something it is usually from a deep hidden place that has been reached by fire. Women can go there too but creativity is what they were born to do. It has always been so. The woman was the source of all creation. The Catholic Church and University male dominated science depatments tried to change all of that. Strong creative women have been eradicated in most western developed societies. The most creativity that modern women can muster is what pair of branded male designed shoes can go with their belts. Women acting masculine to get ahead and men feeling useless and unsure.

[mckinley]

"The act of recreating the subject matter becomes more of a technical exercise in showing a mastery of the medium."

-- Which is about as ur-macho as you can get.
.

[TomR]

For me philosophically speaking, art has the following attributes:

* Communicates an intended idea or truth without needing further explanation. If it needs to be explained, then it becomes psychology-based, indicating the artist didn't effectively communicate their idea in their work.

* Didn't exist previously. It's something new actually created or captured by the artist. So taking an existing object and simply redefining as one's own art doesn't work for me.

* Requires decision-making in its creation.

* Incorporates (art, animation, music, sound, and/or tactile, etc.) design principle(s) in its construction. Art is a subset of self-expression. Self-expression without the use of design principles is not art. However, it is possible that the random application of self-expression could end up demonstrating design principles.

Bonus, but not required attributes:
* Communicates beauty
* Appeals to the audience on an emotional level

I know my thinking about art may seem rigid. On the other hand, I think the term "art" has become so muddied as to lose its meaning.

My two cents.

- Tom

[TomR]

----
But even within that sphere there are ardent realists who seek to recreate reality down to the molecule. This is especially prevalent in the water color world where first prize winners are often indistinguishable from the photograph it was copied from. Realism is very macho.
----

Years ago, this realism discussion came up in one of the art-related classes I took. What exactly is it that the artist is communicating by obsessively recreating every blade of grass in perfect clarity? Why is each blade of grass being given an equal amount of importance and attention? How does this help communicate an intended message? What design decision has he or she made? Generally, it was concluded that the artist is allowing him/herself to become a very slow color copy machine and is adding nothing of him/herself to the subject matter. The act of recreating the subject matter becomes more of a technical exercise in showing a mastery of the medium. The painting becomes devoid of any interpretation that communicates an intended message by the artist. I suppose if the artist snapped the original photograph, the artistry would have occurred in how the original photo was composed, its lighting, etc. That's where the design decisions happened.

- Tom