Week 2: Aesthetic Evangelists




       The first point that Kester brought up that struck me, was the idea that the two "primary area's of conservative attack," (Kester, Aesthetic Evangelists) the arts and welfare. While this essay was written before I was born, these area's of attack are still very debated in today's society. Attack on the arts is one that really hits home to everyone in class, seeing as we're all in art school. It's not something I think about often, but when it was written about in the article I couldn't help but get that off my mind.

I noticed the ideas of artists working with the homeless in order to better the homeless came up at least once. "This "collaboration" might consist simply of a particular group (e.g. "the homeless")"(Kester, Aesthetic Evangelists) It's an interesting idea, and one that needs to be talked about. However it feels weird when artists poke at the topic. Sure, I haven't seen the pieces that the author referred to, but as a whole it seems narcissistic. It's meant to help the homeless and shed light on it, but in the end makes the artist look like a hero, and more betters the artist than the homeless. Same idea is applied to the musical/movie Rent. One of the main characters wants to make "art" showcasing the homeless, yet in doing so only benefits himself. It's a shallow idea in some ways.

"The trouble with a lot of politically motivated art is a failure of nerve. Artists who produce work that they know is not favored by our established regime are not necessarily taking risks, since they can forecast the results. Truly taking a risk means not knowing what's going to happen in the end." (Lewis) this quote really stuck out to me. I don't have much to say other than I completely agree with it. In fact this statement can apply to all art, not just politically motivated art. Lots of artists produce art that acts as though it making a statement, and being different. In the end the artist knows the response will be generally negative or positive, based on the idea. I've seen someone make dick sculptures for gallery show here at Calarts. Art like this falls flat, for the artist knows most people will call it "weird." And expect a big pat on the back for making such a huge statement. In reality nothing is said, and the art has no meaning. It's not a risk knowing if people won't like it.

The last observation I have is on the amount of narcissism in this reading. It seems like the artist who is able to pull of community art is put on this big pedestal. "...she could gain respect and legitimacy in the eyes of her young charges. I think she learned that this access could bring her legitimacy in the art world as well."(Kester, Aesthetic Evangelists) Kester wrote this about Dedeaux. The statement makes it seem like this project was for no one else but her. And that she is so proud of "changing" lives, but really, she's proud of herself. She has a right to be, but there seems to be this facade that community art is about the people, and while it is, it also seems to be largely about the artist. It seems as though Kester knows this as well, based on her use of quotation marks to add a certain texture and tone to the reading.