I have made a number of studio notebooks which are a mix of lists, comments on my own and other people’s work, and drawings. These are usually a quick record of a new idea; a way of capturing the freshness of first configurations.
I always take a sketchbook when I look at art because the act of recording requires one to look SO much more closely. These aren't photographically correct, but try and capture through targeted focus or exaggeration aspects that are particularly interesting. These sketches often serve no futher purpose, just as a tool for on-the-spot understanding. I wrote a blogpost about how this process is for me (10 years ago, but still stands true): https://lucychurchill.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/why-take-a-sketch-book-when-you-look-at-sculpture/
Yes, I agree, it's great practice to sketch what you're looking at because it makes you really focus and learn. When I was doing my MA at the V&A my tutor made us do this for the objects that we were studying in the collections there. I'm not great at drawing, but it was a brilliant lesson in close observation, and the insights that come from that process. Thanks for the link, I'll have a read now.
My initial thought about environmental issues was that it’s based on personal awareness no matter how much news is readily available. And someone who is famous as Cai, the work was destined to get called out though I am surprised not sooner with the impacts of large firework projects to the environments. Interesting indeed. Regarding your third question, I’m certain there are a lot of conversations going when artists are in such state but I think it’s a personal call for an artist to openly oppose their government depending on the level of risks to their own life, family and community they’re willing to take, and the support the get. The shift in an artist’s work can be in a wide range from subtle to in-your-face messages.
Thank you for stimulating my brain again and the feature of the sketches.
Thanks for your thoughts. Yes I think you're right about it being a difficult personal decision as to the level of risk artists should open themselves to. It brings to mind Pussy Riot, whose members have stood again Putin's regime, have served prison time and now have targets on their backs even outside Russia. Ai Weiwei has been imprisoned by the CCP. It's a scary thing. Cai has accepted work from the CCP which he could potentially turn down. But saying that I don't know the details and we make a lot of assumptions about what is and isn't possible.
I think a study of the ethics and practice of Christo and Jeanne-Claude provides a contrasting lesson in how large scale interventions were done long, long ago in a galaxy far away. Since then, as we have witnessed,the patronage of billionaires, corporations and governments made possible by enormous financial surpluses have enabled new art institutions, blockbuster exhibitions and projects like those from Cai, were we, the art consumer, suspect a return to an instrumental role vis a vis power. Annoyingly, these products have also brought us joy and awe.
Thanks for this post. Here are some thoughts in response to your invitation re: the question of the ethics of making art. I remember reading your recent newsletter on Judy Chicago. When thinking about Cai and Chicago, it’s interesting to me how differently their work is sometimes received despite their shared use of materials with potentially harmful environmental and human impacts? Cai’s use of gunpowder, pyrotechnics and smoke is criticized not only for its ecological impact but also as being bound up with the Chinese state. While Chicago’s use of similar materials has been celebrated as a feminist intervention, the ‘feminisation’ of land art... This seems like a double standard to me which is made sharper when we consider Chicago’s participation in an exhibition in Israel while its government carries out a genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza. At least, she has received some criticism for this, especially since her decision is arguably in contradiction with feminism’s commitment to justice and human rights. It also complicates Western critiques of authoritarianism in China and of artists like Cai who’ve received state support when the United States funds and arms a genocide, and American artists implicitly condone it through their institutional affiliations. Both artists raise important questions with their work, but it seems worth acknowledging that our interpretations are often influenced not only by the work itself but by who makes it and where we situate them in broader cultural narratives?
I wonder whether the fireworks aspect of Cai's work is perhaps a bit more damaging to natural environments than Chicago's, which is more smoke than noise? But I completely agree with you about our interpretations being influenced by who makes it and how we situate them in cultural and political narratives. Plus also it depends on where the viewer comes from politically too -- whether they would agree with your analysis on Israel, or whether they believe China is friend or foe etc. And all of this changes over time as politics and culture change -- I'm thinking of artists who have been embraced in one era and cancelled in another.
Considering Cai's work: I realise artists need to earn money just as much as anyone else (a constant challenge) and I wouldn't be adverse to using my artistic skill to make paid work for a company (in fact I love projects), but the difference is: I WOULDN'T CALL IT ART. I'd say, this work is made using artistic means and knowhow, but because it has a purpose it cannot be a work of art. For me, a work of art has to be free from purpose but meaningful. And there is nothing wrong in using your artistic knowledge to create attractive work that is a means to an end. Of course I also work from the premise that art is made by people for people, and if you are destroying the environment in such a major way (fireworks) then you are also destroying humanity in the end - we need to live with and in harmony with the other than humans and the planet and not destroy it. Of course I would also argue that his work is eye catching, shocking, titillating and exciting - however for me, this is all too blatent and town cryerish. It is hard to miss, it grabs you by the p to misquote somebody. Personally I think we have to learn to see again, learn to look into ourselves and spend time, quietly with art that doesn't shout and scream for our attention, but allows us each to deveop our own response to it, in an open and free manner, meaning everyone will find something meaningful to them, thier story and experiences. Matisse also noted that to enjoy a work of art you need time.
Interesting that you say that work that has a corporate sponsor is not art. There are so many 'art' projects that would fall under that banner. Certainly I've noticed a lot of Cai's work has corporate sponsorship. I know what you mean about his work being quite blatant and in-yer-face and quick, but I don't mind that so much. It's art as experience, which speaks to us as consumers -- it's very 'now'. Reflection can come afterwards surely? Saying that, like you I also favour art that you can spend time with.
I take your point about not destroying the environment. This is why I wonder whether his work is more subtle than some critics give him credit for. Is the location and the medium (destructive gunpowder) a political statement? Whatever his intention is doesn't matter, it's how we receive it. Certainly it has made me think about all these ethical questions about art, and it has made me think again about Chinese-Tibetan relations. Surely generating reflection about our world, the art world, politics etc is what powerful art does?
Thanks for this discussion, and your open response! So great to share and discuss ideas to get a better understanding!
I think the problem is that as soon as you make art touting certain ideas (political, environmental), you violate the viewer into thinking about these subjects - and so she is no longer free. If i paint a picture and write “go green” in large capital letters on it, i am forcing everyone who sees it to think about a topic I feel is important. If on the other hand I paint a landscape or a vase of flowers, my message could be the same, but looking at it you could think, oh I want to save that, or i just need to feed my soul by letting my eyes wander round this beautiful scene. Making it open and free for individual experiencez, after all the viewer has to be able to finish the painting with thier subjectivity. This is of course why dictators want to get rid of artists quickly - they offer a real freedom, as opposed to the “forced freedom” the dictator is offering.
Hmm good question. I think I am for titles, but against pages of explanation as to why this work was made. The work should speak for itself. If you need a text to explain the work, then for me, it isn't a work of art. Of course, for an art historian, its interesting to know the context, how the artist was feeling, if he'd just cut off his ear etc etc. However, for the art appreciator, this information, while interesting, shouldn't be necessary. A title can give you a hint where the artist was going with the piece, but can't explain everything.
I am that art historian, Sibylle! I agree that an explanation shouldn't be necessary, but it is important for comprehension with some art. And in my experience can turn an artwork that is entirely uninteresting without the explanation into something really engaging. Maybe this is a subject for next week's newsletter...
I have made a number of studio notebooks which are a mix of lists, comments on my own and other people’s work, and drawings. These are usually a quick record of a new idea; a way of capturing the freshness of first configurations.
I always take a sketchbook when I look at art because the act of recording requires one to look SO much more closely. These aren't photographically correct, but try and capture through targeted focus or exaggeration aspects that are particularly interesting. These sketches often serve no futher purpose, just as a tool for on-the-spot understanding. I wrote a blogpost about how this process is for me (10 years ago, but still stands true): https://lucychurchill.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/why-take-a-sketch-book-when-you-look-at-sculpture/
Yes, I agree, it's great practice to sketch what you're looking at because it makes you really focus and learn. When I was doing my MA at the V&A my tutor made us do this for the objects that we were studying in the collections there. I'm not great at drawing, but it was a brilliant lesson in close observation, and the insights that come from that process. Thanks for the link, I'll have a read now.
My initial thought about environmental issues was that it’s based on personal awareness no matter how much news is readily available. And someone who is famous as Cai, the work was destined to get called out though I am surprised not sooner with the impacts of large firework projects to the environments. Interesting indeed. Regarding your third question, I’m certain there are a lot of conversations going when artists are in such state but I think it’s a personal call for an artist to openly oppose their government depending on the level of risks to their own life, family and community they’re willing to take, and the support the get. The shift in an artist’s work can be in a wide range from subtle to in-your-face messages.
Thank you for stimulating my brain again and the feature of the sketches.
Thanks for your thoughts. Yes I think you're right about it being a difficult personal decision as to the level of risk artists should open themselves to. It brings to mind Pussy Riot, whose members have stood again Putin's regime, have served prison time and now have targets on their backs even outside Russia. Ai Weiwei has been imprisoned by the CCP. It's a scary thing. Cai has accepted work from the CCP which he could potentially turn down. But saying that I don't know the details and we make a lot of assumptions about what is and isn't possible.
I think a study of the ethics and practice of Christo and Jeanne-Claude provides a contrasting lesson in how large scale interventions were done long, long ago in a galaxy far away. Since then, as we have witnessed,the patronage of billionaires, corporations and governments made possible by enormous financial surpluses have enabled new art institutions, blockbuster exhibitions and projects like those from Cai, were we, the art consumer, suspect a return to an instrumental role vis a vis power. Annoyingly, these products have also brought us joy and awe.
100% to all of this. And I was thinking of Christo and Jeanne-Claude as I wrote it!
Thanks for this post. Here are some thoughts in response to your invitation re: the question of the ethics of making art. I remember reading your recent newsletter on Judy Chicago. When thinking about Cai and Chicago, it’s interesting to me how differently their work is sometimes received despite their shared use of materials with potentially harmful environmental and human impacts? Cai’s use of gunpowder, pyrotechnics and smoke is criticized not only for its ecological impact but also as being bound up with the Chinese state. While Chicago’s use of similar materials has been celebrated as a feminist intervention, the ‘feminisation’ of land art... This seems like a double standard to me which is made sharper when we consider Chicago’s participation in an exhibition in Israel while its government carries out a genocide and ethnic cleansing in Gaza. At least, she has received some criticism for this, especially since her decision is arguably in contradiction with feminism’s commitment to justice and human rights. It also complicates Western critiques of authoritarianism in China and of artists like Cai who’ve received state support when the United States funds and arms a genocide, and American artists implicitly condone it through their institutional affiliations. Both artists raise important questions with their work, but it seems worth acknowledging that our interpretations are often influenced not only by the work itself but by who makes it and where we situate them in broader cultural narratives?
I wonder whether the fireworks aspect of Cai's work is perhaps a bit more damaging to natural environments than Chicago's, which is more smoke than noise? But I completely agree with you about our interpretations being influenced by who makes it and how we situate them in cultural and political narratives. Plus also it depends on where the viewer comes from politically too -- whether they would agree with your analysis on Israel, or whether they believe China is friend or foe etc. And all of this changes over time as politics and culture change -- I'm thinking of artists who have been embraced in one era and cancelled in another.
Considering Cai's work: I realise artists need to earn money just as much as anyone else (a constant challenge) and I wouldn't be adverse to using my artistic skill to make paid work for a company (in fact I love projects), but the difference is: I WOULDN'T CALL IT ART. I'd say, this work is made using artistic means and knowhow, but because it has a purpose it cannot be a work of art. For me, a work of art has to be free from purpose but meaningful. And there is nothing wrong in using your artistic knowledge to create attractive work that is a means to an end. Of course I also work from the premise that art is made by people for people, and if you are destroying the environment in such a major way (fireworks) then you are also destroying humanity in the end - we need to live with and in harmony with the other than humans and the planet and not destroy it. Of course I would also argue that his work is eye catching, shocking, titillating and exciting - however for me, this is all too blatent and town cryerish. It is hard to miss, it grabs you by the p to misquote somebody. Personally I think we have to learn to see again, learn to look into ourselves and spend time, quietly with art that doesn't shout and scream for our attention, but allows us each to deveop our own response to it, in an open and free manner, meaning everyone will find something meaningful to them, thier story and experiences. Matisse also noted that to enjoy a work of art you need time.
Interesting that you say that work that has a corporate sponsor is not art. There are so many 'art' projects that would fall under that banner. Certainly I've noticed a lot of Cai's work has corporate sponsorship. I know what you mean about his work being quite blatant and in-yer-face and quick, but I don't mind that so much. It's art as experience, which speaks to us as consumers -- it's very 'now'. Reflection can come afterwards surely? Saying that, like you I also favour art that you can spend time with.
I take your point about not destroying the environment. This is why I wonder whether his work is more subtle than some critics give him credit for. Is the location and the medium (destructive gunpowder) a political statement? Whatever his intention is doesn't matter, it's how we receive it. Certainly it has made me think about all these ethical questions about art, and it has made me think again about Chinese-Tibetan relations. Surely generating reflection about our world, the art world, politics etc is what powerful art does?
Thanks for this discussion, and your open response! So great to share and discuss ideas to get a better understanding!
I think the problem is that as soon as you make art touting certain ideas (political, environmental), you violate the viewer into thinking about these subjects - and so she is no longer free. If i paint a picture and write “go green” in large capital letters on it, i am forcing everyone who sees it to think about a topic I feel is important. If on the other hand I paint a landscape or a vase of flowers, my message could be the same, but looking at it you could think, oh I want to save that, or i just need to feed my soul by letting my eyes wander round this beautiful scene. Making it open and free for individual experiencez, after all the viewer has to be able to finish the painting with thier subjectivity. This is of course why dictators want to get rid of artists quickly - they offer a real freedom, as opposed to the “forced freedom” the dictator is offering.
Do you think paintings shouldn't have titles, then?
Hmm good question. I think I am for titles, but against pages of explanation as to why this work was made. The work should speak for itself. If you need a text to explain the work, then for me, it isn't a work of art. Of course, for an art historian, its interesting to know the context, how the artist was feeling, if he'd just cut off his ear etc etc. However, for the art appreciator, this information, while interesting, shouldn't be necessary. A title can give you a hint where the artist was going with the piece, but can't explain everything.
I am that art historian, Sibylle! I agree that an explanation shouldn't be necessary, but it is important for comprehension with some art. And in my experience can turn an artwork that is entirely uninteresting without the explanation into something really engaging. Maybe this is a subject for next week's newsletter...