Nickard reflects on "Monsters"

 
University at Buffalo Professors Gary Nickard and Reinhardt Reitzenstein perform "Monsters of Nature and Design II" at the Albright-Knox Art Gallery last September. Buffalo News / Harry Scull.

My most recent ArtsBeat column reflected on the very public, very perplexing art project "Monsters of Nature and Design," which a pair of University at Buffalo professors have been working on for the last couple of years. And in response to the column and the blog entry that accompanied it, one of the professors (and chief conceiver of the "Monsters" project) sent another reply that sheds even more light on the issue at hand.

That issue is the public's ability to interpret conceptual art that can sometimes be more confusing than a quantum physics equation. My point was that everybody -- professors, art critics, artists and the public at large -- shares responsibility for the ease with which a lot of conceptual art is dismissed. The artists, professors and critics for not explaining it in English, and some segments of the public for stifling curiosity before the art even has a chance to reveal itself.

All this is vastly more important as art continues to become more and more wrapped up in ideas that seem, on the surface, esoteric, inaccessible, narcissistic Ivory Tower drivel. Which a lot of it very well may be. Check out what Nickard had to say after the jump, and then jump in yourself if you feel so inclined.

--Colin Dabkowski

Gary Nickard [emphasis ArtsBeat's]:

Thank you for taking our efforts seriously and giving us a chance to speak for ourselves.

I agree with much of your assessment and the need to give the public more of a clue as to what is going on in art.

That said I do think that there is a fine line between the interpretive information necessary for intelligent engagement and forcing a point of view on people. However, I do think we foolishly neglected "preparing the ground" on Monsters II & III and it's a lesson well learned.

As you astutely pointed out I should (and did) expect the "uninformed" responses we got, but I didn't expect the "outpouring of snide, philistine reactions" we unwittingly seemed to provoke.

I have something like 14 years experience as a gallerist and 15 years experience as a professor of art and I have never before seen the level of vehemence that we generated with this work - clearly we touched some nerve and I don't think it's just about pianos.

Back in the 1980's I presented exhibitions that included work by such socially "challenging" figures as Robert Mapplethorpe, David Wojnarowicz, Peter Hujar and others that may have ruffled a few conservative feathers but the general audience in Buffalo seemed actually willing to give the work a chance.  I even had to deal with the Buffalo Vice Squad over a Barbara Hammer film that CEPA was presenting in conjunction with the Gay & Lesbian film festival.  Yet, aside from the "Culture Wars" heyday of cynically orchestrated political attacks upon art that challenged the bullshit notion of "family values" this is the first time I have seen such an undirected grass roots groundswell of negativity.

I assure you we certainly didn't set out to provoke such a reaction, we would prefer amusement, or even perplexity, but the hostility is really out of proportion to the nature (and intention) of the actions. I really wish people had more of a sense of humor or at least more of a willingness to give something a chance.

It's all a bit mysterious to me as to the exact cause, but I do think that the social climate now encourages people to immediately "go postal" without thinking about why or what is at stake.

Last fall I gave a presentation about my work to the local Phi Beta Kappa society. At first I thought, well these are obviously smart people, they will give me an open minded hearing - boy was I mistaken and I unexpectedly provoked quite a rumpus, and what seemed to put the bee in their bonnets wasn't the piano destructions, but my science work!

Honestly Colin, I don't get it, something has changed.  Back in the 70's people were more willing to give something new in art a chance, or at least just willing to dismiss it as weird aesthetic behavior, now people seem to become angry if they don't immediately get something - they seem to want an easy answer or an easy way in - perhaps so it can be safely classified and quickly filed away to be forgotten. People seem most comfortable with art that confirms their own points of view and reluctant to even think about something that asks too many uncomfortable questions or presents an idea that challenges them.

Anyway, another one bites the dust, onward to Monsters VI...

Many thanks for your interest,

Gary Nickard

Comments

[dan]

gary's remark about "going postal" is dead on. for some reason, people love getting needlessly fired up.