Sleepless not because of the eleventh hour push to get assignments done or worrying about grades, but sleepless thinking about a program going on for the entire year of 2008 at the New Museum in New York City; called “Night School”, the program is commissioned from artist Anton Vidokle by the New Museum and the core offering to the public is four days of seminars at the end of every month which are run and moderated by more than a dozen artists, writers and contemporary thinkers. Much more than just a program of public seminars, the New Museum’s literature relates and expands on the format of a “temporary school” where museums, organizing contributors, twenty-five hand selected core students and the interested public facilitate extended critical engagement in contemporary art, institutions and the role of the artist ("Night School").
The yearlong “Night School” falls under and alongside the auspices of other new programs that coincide with the opening of the New Museum’s brand new building. The “Night School” organizers are counted as ‘fellows’ of a new program called Museum as Hub which will partner four international art organizations with the New Museum’s. All will implement programming in their locale on the agreed topic of ‘neighborhood’, cross planning and hosting the other institutions literally and virtually on their websites, and in exhibition spaces and education centers. Museum as Hub is described as a “new model for curatorial practice and institutional collaboration…to enhance our understanding of contemporary art around the world” ("Night School"). This interconnected tangle of programs and exhibitions seems cleverly formulated to perhaps for the first time cut into the maze of bias, nepotism, leading experts and arbiters of taste to rediscover what discovering art is: a very real desire to ‘get it’.
In Vidokle’s transcribed opening remarks for “Night School” he frighteningly states “while it is still possible to produce critical art object, there seems to be no public out there to complete its transformative function, possibly rendering the very premise behind contemporary art practice effectively futile” (2). He describes the subtle and complex historic difference between the socially engaged public of the past and the one of the present that seems to be degenerating into an audience that does not seek a role beyond “being consumers of leisure and spectacle” ("Vidokle" 2). This is a clear observation that should give pause to thought for all, not just artists.
What seems to be fundamental to the understanding of “Night School” as a commissioned work of art is that it is a work that finally gets around to exploring what has always been crucial to appreciating art, the process of engagement. Far from blockbuster exhibitions that have brought a whole world of paintings to billboards and covered city buses in advertising ‘skins’, “Night School” is designed to “aggressively solicit audiences…through advertisement” of its “content” not it’s “objects” ("Vidokle" 3). Like the adage “a workman is only as good as his tools” this far-reaching program does not shy away from the part of the system that works, but seeks to uproot the insidious and pervasive apathy of thought that approaches the practice of art and trappings of culture as just another commodity to be pigeonholed or peddled to niche markets.
Vidokle describes the product of “Night School” as “framed by itself” and while assisted by the museum the program does not totally rely on the institution to “display it” ("Vidokle" 4). It is exactly because of inspired statements like this that I am simultaneously loathing and loving the internet at the moment for sending me the enchanted list-serve email that made me aware of this program happening in a city 350 miles away from me in the first place. Lauded for the accessibility of its national museums, that are admission free and open every day but Christmas, the institutions in Washington, DC have historically served as window for a national audience to look upon this countries objects of significance. The Smithsonian Institution and other national galleries have likewise existed as a “frame for itself” as the nation’s cabinet of wonders for spectacle and for acceptable interpretation. But from my perspective as a full-time colonial citizen of the United States capital city circa 2008 it seems that in DC, as in Vidokle’s description of his project for Manifesta 6 “the situation demands not commentary, but involvement and production”("Exhibition" 2). The desire to be a part of a dialogue and the anticipation of carrying away ideas, rather than note cards and coffee mugs, has already taken a strong hold on me. Unlike the ambivalence I feel for the entreaty of my peers that I ‘really must go to Miami one of these years’- I feel drawn to “Night School” in an almost supernatural way; not unlike Vidokle describes his reading of George Maciunas unrealized vision for the New Marlborough Centre for the Arts that that Vidokle says “is a proposal that hinges on the notion of ‘possibility’, saying far less about what needs to be done than about what can be done” ("Exhibition" 3). And on that note – there is something in this man Vidokle’s single-minded repetition that there must be a way found for art, lasting great art, that can be made available to the public independent of the institutions that the leading society is holding onto with a death grip. As individuals, we have become too comfortable with our insular tendencies. Unlike the spirit of revolution and manifesto driven by desires to break from totalitarianism and capitalism that are now reflected upon as the impetus for the ‘true’ art of the 20th century, the 21st century has yet to name its motivation. I vote for thoughtful collaboration, access to information and equitable education and what better place to start than art.
Works Cited
Night School. 2008. New Museum. New York. 5 Mar 2008
Vidokle, Anton. “Exhibition as School in a Divided City.” Reading Room,
unitednationsplaza. 12 Mar. 2008.
---. “Opening Remarks. Anton Vidokle. Night School, January 31,
2008.” 31 Jan 2008. 12 Mar. 2008
Karen Joan Topping
Independent Writing Project I
P. Falzone
Washington, DC
3/14/08
11 comments:
Hello,
You tackle a very intricately diverse topic well in explaining the elements of Museum as Hub and Night School. It was interesting when you quoted Vidokle “ being consumers of leisure and spectacle” I thought you could dive more into this. You write so well, the last sentence of the fourth paragraph is something to aspire to. Your research and critical thought process is finely sharpen and well represented in this essay. The way you bring your own thought into the topic in the last paragraph is wonderfully insightful, clear, intelligent and honest and it is a good conclusion. You bring all the pieces of the essay together well in your own analytical art student opinion. There was not much to say critically about anything else, it was very well done.
Eva
Your writing style is interesting and informative. I saw this piece as more of a response or a call to action than a review. After reading up on the "Night School" concept it seems to be something that has been lost for a long time...the interest to bring art back to the masses. Making art accessible and non-threatening to all. Art should be the great equalizer and yet there are so many people in the world who shy away from experiencing it as if they were afraid to "say" the "wrong thing" about it - like the student in the back of the room with the right answer that is afraid to raise his hand. All in all - it its an interesting point to discuss and does lead one to want to get involved. I am not sure how this functions as a "review" of a show, but is certainly functions well as an introduction and review of an concept and idea.
You write very well and your article was interesting in that I am looking at each link and finding more about Night School. I do have to say that it feels like you are promoting Night School rather then making a review but i don't think that this is necessarily a bad thing. I think that it is important to educate people in seeing art and talking about it. It gives them the tools to be more involved and the ability speak intelligently about art.
Hey, Karen.
It took a while for me to wrap my brain around what Night School actually is, but your piece brought it home to me and made it into a sporting proposition as well. Since I am contemplating the political obligations of artists these days, and I am always thinking about whether collectives are possible, Vidokle's project rang several bells with me.
I didn't get a clear idea of what was going on in the individual classrooms, though. "School" conjures up, in my mind at least, a person at a blackboard with a piece of chalk held in a wooden extender like a cigarette holder. You know, "Here is the slate, here is what is to be learned." It is almost frighteningly typical of the dark side of this art business we're in that there seems to be so little information on what these soon-to-be-well-informed art lovers are actually going to learn.
Sorry, I am going to have to leave this tomorrow. I wrote this response to your (very good) piece three times. I know how to use my computer. Really. But all three of my responses disappeared. Heck.
My assessment of Karen Joan's essay will appear first thing on Thursday. Dang.
Hi Karen Joan—
This is a nice, forward-thinking piece of writing about a fascinating and healthy idea. I look to you for meta-analysis, and I am gratified to see that you seem to have some attraction to the idea of the collective. "The twentieth century has yet to name its motivation," you write, making a delicate distinction. Our new century may be very well aware of what's driving it, but it hasn't nominated the words yet. I will have to bounce around inside this thought for a while. It's a keeper.
I wonder why you don't mention some of the particulars of Vidokle's courses, since they seem to be fairly ordinary in their setup: i.e., the students appear at an agreed-upon time at the New Museum, and the hand-picked panel talks at them for an agreed-upon interval. What I wonder is whether the students have to pay for this or not, and what they're talking about. After all, we can't really call this progress if all people are doing is regurgitating Jameson or Howard Zinn. This would seem to me to carry a great deal of influence over how equitable this "Night School" project is. Underneath it all, we know that art is supposed to be for the rich or the obsessed. There's nothing in your piece that suggests how a wider audience can be reached. Claes Oldenburg said in Barbara Rose's book that he was "for an art that helps old ladies across the street." We all want to know how to make that kind of art.
"There must be a way found for art," you say—one that is apart from the "institutions that the leading society is holding onto with a death grip"—the New Museum, of course, being one of them. How's that for irony? Kind of like the album title (I think it was), "Pop Will Eat Itself."
I love a review that includes a call to action on behalf of the public and the future. After all, as Eudora Welty said, there's only one kind of art suitable for the American public, and that's the best art. Obviously, for this outside path to be cleared and trod, artists like you will have to stay in the game for long enough to make an impression. Not artists like you, though. Artists who ARE you.
I am an easel painter who is showing late-stage signs of busting out, modest as they may be. How can easel painters be part of a movement outside the white-walled institutions?
In sum, there are a few organizational points you left out, but this is a very good piece anyway. A very, very good one. I'd like to see more of your analysis, especially if you do it in this sincere, upright, linguistically adroit way.
Your fellow colonial citizen (though I am a colonial citizen in a debauched town famous for gambling, vice, and mineral baths)—
Sally E.
Hi Karen,
I was a bit intimidated, and flustered that I had to read your 86 word opening sentence four times in order to understand what you were saying. I like your topic, and insight on the motives and tendencies of the art institution in this present age. However, even with your several citations from Vidokle, this piece ends up as a sort of personal manifesto from you—which I can dig, I like that sort of passion. I only wish that I understood more about Night School in a more concrete, less verbose way. But maybe the write up fits the premise you are writing about. After all, if it doesn’t work, just call it “art,” right? By the way, you misused a possessive “s” on “it’s” (fourth paragraph, second sentence). That was for calling me a “Slought Hater.” ☺ Hope you’re well.
-Nate
Karen, your writing is sophisticated in its structure and concept. The concepts of apathy in viewing artwork, the role of the artist in institutions, and the future of contemporary art that you bring up in your article are abstract and socially motivated. I especially enjoy the way you ended your article by questioning what factors motivate artists in the 21st century. Your ending encourages thought both about what you have written but also encourages the reader to question him/her self. You are definitely writing to an educated audience. It took me a few reads to really understand what “Night School” was. I think you should break up your first sentence into two or three sentences because you should try to be very clear and concise in your opening paragraph. Because your writing style is somewhat complex I think you may unintentionally exclude the most apathetic viewers of art from grasping the concepts presented. I think you bring up good points about understanding contemporary art in your writing. You not only review “Night School” but your own voice and ideas are strongly conveyed.
Hey Karen,
I think out of all the reviews I read, yours is the one that challenges me the most. How ironic it is that you reside in the one area of the country where people look to their governmental structures for some type of reflection/acknowledgement of their own concerns. Kinda like art if you think about it, and the art and culture you describe in Night School is nothing if not democratic in its ambitions and scope. Unlike you, I've never met Vidokle or even heard about him until your article, so although the end/or transformation of history away from previous repressive hierarchies, mass culture, media effects paradigms adds grist to my mill, my only referents are the personalities and works that I encounter in my readings. Firsthand or secondhand knowledge of his methodologies and not just his stated aims is my primary concern as a reader/critic and an artist. Since its still in its inception stage I'll be curious to see how it unfolds.
Hi Karen,
I must confess, I had to read your essay a couple of times to understand what you were writing about. Your writing wasn’t unclear; it was just a lot of new information to take in at once. I didn’t have any prior knowledge of the things you mentioned; Night School, New Museum’s brand new building, Museum as Hub, ‘neighborhood’, which were all talked about in the first two paragraphs. While I am thankful that you included links to “read up” on the background, it may have been helpful to pick it apart a little more. Once I looked into the links and went back to rereading, it all made sense.
You stated that “I feel drawn to ‘Night School’ in an almost supernatural way”, I wish you dove a little deeper into this and explained how it was supernatural. While I really enjoyed your essay, I think it is hard to review an event that hasn’t happened just yet, or that you were not a witness to. Therefore, this essay seems more like a conversation of the “to come” rather than something that you experienced first hand.
However, you do have a very fascinating topic that raises many questions (some that you addressed) which motivates your reader to further investigate “Night School”. I would like to know who would fall into “interested public” as one of the groups that would be participating in “Night School”. If what Vidokle said about “no public out there” being interested in the art of today’s society, then isn’t the “interested public” really just a bunch of art related persons. And if that is the case, will this “Night School” be bias in any way? Do you think we can really reach the “outside public” if art-goers are the ones at the wheel? I would be interested in what you think about the specific group of people who get to participate.
Post a Comment