artblog international
How much does arts funding matter?
By max mulhern
May 18, 2008 · 5 Comments
Max Mulhern, whom I told you about here, wrote an interesting response to some of the comments on that piece. The comments focused on one thing mentioned in a much longer article– funding for artists. But an inflammatory topic will out, and one of the commenters wanted to know “What does Max Mulhern believe?” (about whether trust funded artists are the only ones who can afford to make art these days). Here’s his response:
Post by Max Mulhern
Dear Roberta,
> I didn’t want to make a half baked reply on the blog concerning the question about trust fund artists. I was slightly disappointed that that was the subject most focused upon. But Arts Funding and funding one’s work is vital and always creeps into art conversations. It is an important subject, and art and money do mix well when and if they meet at all. When we meet again I’ll tell you about the Matthew Barney show that I saw here in London called “Drawing Restraint”.
In it were many videos of Barney trying to draw by (to name a few):
- Hanging over the side of a boat and placing the paper against the hull
- Using a trampoline to jump high enough to draw on a ceiling
- Drawing in the engine room of a boat while wearing ear protection
- Drawing while suspended from pipes in a room with mountain climbing gear etc.
Plus an installation in the gallery where he climbed up a wall using climbing wall outcrops and a rope to get up to the ceiling of the gallery to draw on it.
Image from the Drawing Restraint website, including (presumably) the tools used to make the drawing and the drawing.
It was interesting to see how an artist funded to the amplitude of a multinational company needed to create barriers, restraints and constraints for himself in order to do his work. If it was a metaphor for how difficult it is to make art then it was wonderful. The problem was that he made it too hard to draw and the drawings suffered for that. Did that mean that when the going gets too rough art just cannot be made?
> On the other hand, if it weren’t a metaphor then as a “struggling” artist myself it was confounding to see an artist who can do whatever he wants actually fetter (and tether) his execution of work.
> This kind of tool can be rewarding. My professor at art school often had us adapt uncomfortable positions while drawing nudes, for example. Physical discomfort and visual impairment (ie too close to the subject to see it) made for great things. Besides what’s a shaman if not someone finding a way to reach into the beyond and bring it back to us? Pain and privation are often employed in this pursuit. Artists are entitled to the same methods as they are shamanic themselves. Ritual and practice are an integral part of work in general and the creative process in particular. But one can get lost in the doing and forget the product. And does the public need to know how a piece of art was done?
> Like in most things moderation is an asset. Too much money is probably just as bad as none at all. No pain, no gain/too much pain, death. Despite dwindling arts funding there has been an explosion in the quantity of visual art being produced. Given the economic situation of our country I can’t see Congress earmarking more monies for art. But art will get done anyway.
If art is anything then it is a testament to individual perseverence and the immortality of art itself.
Matthew Barney performing one of his Drawing Restraint drawing actions.
> In Barney’s drawings the resulting drawings made it clear that self-inflicted constraint can be an impediment to making a successful work. Were the works supposed to embody restraint like a portrait embodies an individual? The resulting drawings were retarded or suffering from their maker’s need to always be worrying about too many other things in order to get a line drawn, and therefore vital connections were missed. Maybe the fragmented drawings revealed that he was very close to where he wanted to be but not close enough to establish a concrete outpost? Maybe someone else has to go out there and connect the dots? Perhaps we were supposed to marvel at how difficult an artist can make things for himself?
He is definitely a fit artist.
He’s an athlete like myself; When physically active there is a heightened sense of “alive-ness.” Does that rub off on the art or does it just make for action art?
I like to do what I am depicting as having done. It’s fatiguing. Other artists laugh at me and point out how I can make it seem like what I am depicting was actually done. I am uncomfortable with artifice and yet it can be an artists best friend. Extreme physical exertion to make a work doesn’t make it more real (I’ve learned the hard way). With Barney we see that the method, production, and means are the subject and not the resulting work. I tend to tally the costs of his shows, in addition to looking at them, of course. He’s lost in the doing and the funding and so are we.
Max
Tags: matthew barney, max mulhern
Readers Comments (5)
Sorry that my question became the focus Max. But I like your response and that you did not gloss over it or avoid it. Your observations of Barney are right on about how I feel. I think it is a metaphor. The artist becomes the “resulting work.”
So are the actual drawings art? It is like a movie prop. Just part of the whole.
Barney is the artist and artwork in Drawing Restraint. What you would think of as the final product (the drawings) is no longer the resulting work. He is only lost in the doing and funding because he is the artist/artwork. It just seems to lead to art becoming a philosophy that I can’t even explain. It is like Pandora’s Box is open and the confusion is only just beginning.
There is no clear direction in art. There is no clear definition of art. I kind of think that people in general want truth or what they want to be the truth. That goes for everything, science, politics, art, etc. Artists tend to reflect what is going on in their world. In some cases, it is about funding. In other cases maybe it is about the work.
Ask this question…what is art? Now try not to give a half baked answer to that. I wouldn’t dare to answer that. I am too chicken.
Still, I have to say that my observations about Barney are only an opinion. Not any truth. Yet, I want to tell people that my opinion is the “truth.” I want people to see what I see. But you can’t control it all. religion, politics, economics, science, art. All the same. Vote Obama, he is the best candidate. Just an opinion that I want people to believe in. Not truth.
When I make a painting or drawing, I am trying to get to a certain point of personal satisfaction. It is sometimes contingent upon/ corrupted by time, money, or my own patience and beliefs.
Anyway Max, I liked the the ideas that were in the blog presented about pedestals and how you seemed to humanize them as individuals and as a group. Most of all, you were encouraging participation in your art. I like that. The viewer can be part of that “resulting work” not just in opinion, but in participation. To me that is one thing I would want in my own work as well. I hope that the viewer would Participate.
Funding is terribly important for an artist to develop.It’s one of FIVE things an artist needs in order to be successful.They are talent,drive, isolation (self imposed for LONG periods), an irrational belief in ones self and MONEY.The day I decided to leave my day job and the security of a pay check to become a serious artist was a scary and confusing time (yes, I was homeless for a while) but 12 months later I met my PATRON (in NYC) and my production went through the roof and as a result of this I was able to developed more quickly, galleries started to take notice of the work sooner than I had expected (this was due to money), money did two things for my career it gave me the time and ability to get my ideas out of my head and made them tangible and the ability to mail work or travel to distant lands to promote my work to galleries.Artists should never underestimate the power of travel in relation to promoting ones work.
I say to struggling artists take a BIG leap off the cliff, most of us will surely die and a few of us will surely fly.You must decide how much you are going to sacrifice to this thing called ART because it’s demands are without measure.You must come to terms with the idea of not ever “making it” even after spending countless years and money trying.Art must become a living person in your life so that you maybe able to anticipate it’s needs, sometimes before you’re own.When the artist commits to art it becomes a child tugging on you’re pant leg saying feed me,play with me,nurture me,love me.Artists that are unable to meet these needs often become demented and or depressed,how can you live with all that (art) stuff inside of you? and money can help counter that.I’m not going to say I’m lucky to have a patron because I made some big sacrifices to art before I ever met my patron, but I am fortunate and you can be too, but what are you willing to give up?
If you all write in as anonymous and you disagree with the previous anonymous, it’s impossible to make any sense of it. If you’re too shy to id yourself, please at least use a nom de internet.
Anonymous is an option for a reason.People should have the right to remain unknown NO MATTER WHAT.This is an issue to take up with you’re blog server,not the people that are taking the time to support you’re efforts.You’re blog server has this “anonymouse” signature as an option.Your lucky to have so many people interested in replying to you’re blog.Libby, we all love you but give us a break.
Hi, Anon., I think perhaps I was not clear, because your response doesn’t pertain to my point. Here’s what I was trying to say:
In this post, we have two really interesting comments, each by someone dubbed anonymous. Is it two different people? It seems so from the conversation. But I don’t know for sure.
What I am suggesting, for those of you who are shy, is when you write your anonymous entry, sign it with a name of your choosing, within the comment box, so as the conversation proceeds, we will know for example that three of those posts came from anonymous A and two came from anonymous B. At this point, because the anonymous posts have been so interesting, we are leaving them up. But the discussion requires a score card!
So, shy though you are, you would be Anonymous A or B or C, etc. (or go wild and call yourself Son of Duchamp or the Babbler or Big Ticket or whatever other handle you would like) in the course of the discussion.
Even better would be if you continue to use that handle throughout artblog, because people can begin to listen for your “voice” and can look for your comments as things that promise to be interesting.
Of course, I personally still would prefer if you id’d yourself, but this is an alternative, middle ground that I am proposing.
Please read this twice if you don’t get it. And if you still don’t get it, write and ask a question or two, and I will try to answer, hopefully with greater clarity.