I'd like to take a minute to post a comment on the 'value' of the antique materials I use in my work. I'm moved to do this after finding some very pointed and disparaging words about desecrating valuable, historic antiques. Seems the manuscript page employed at the end of the creation of my recent piece "The Diary of An Antiquary" (here) really brought the fangs out on a few folks. I was even accused in an offhand way of stealing them from a library.
I was given about 10 pages of this book from a student about 8 years ago. This student had purchased the book, in a very broken state (binding in tatters), at a flea market in eastern Europe. She had said there at the time that books of that vintage were not hard to find in various junk shops and markets.
The point of my post is that I never use objects or printed material that have a high value as a museum-grade material - many of the bits and pieces are found in dismantled condition. Just because it is illuminated manuscript does not instantly qualify it as a treasure to be enshrined in a museum. Their value as a material for re-interpretation, however, is priceless for me, as I believe firmly that by incorporating them into new works they can be elevated in a different way and begin their new life as a work of art.
Perhaps not surprisingly, these comments were made on a 'steampunk' forum, which is a fad that has cropped up in recent years that I find to be much more aligned with prop-making, fashion and set-design than the direction of what I make. To be fair, some comments were in support of what I'm doing, but for the others the idea of using a real antique just isn't part of the steampunk ethos.
If you're interested in reading the commentary, you can find it here.
In my work, to use a copy of the image or object is to miss the point of their presence in the first place - they are used because the object or image ITSELF has been through its own history. It is this accumulated, real history that I hope invests my artwork with its power.
I'd love to have a dialogue about this - anyone?
Keith
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Judy Wilkenfeld started a similar discussion a couple of weeks ago on her blog. It seems to be a subject that gets a lot of people fired up.
ReplyDeleteI must admit, I found it hard at first to take apart an old book, but as I saw what artists like you and Judy create, I realised that it was ok to make something more beautiful, (hopefully!) rather than have it forgotten on a shelf! "Diary of an Antiquary" is absolutely stunning!
OMG! Just read those comments. It made me laugh as they all sound so earnest and "worthy"!
ReplyDeleteThey are "worthy" and SO wrong. The fact remains that all art is an appropriation of history, either directly or indirectly. Exactly the same sort of (faux?) moral indignation accompanied the altering of the Goya etching by the Chapman brothers.
ReplyDeletePeople with these attitudes are reactionary conservatives, the very people that art should - indeed, must - fight against if it is to be allowed to develop and remain relevant. The cult of "nostalgia" is not only bourgeois (in the worst sense of the word) but stifling. One of the great things about works by the likes of Keith (Bob Ebendorf, Rob Jackson, et. al.,) is that they play with these ideas of nostalgia and memory whilst remaining essential and relevant, liberating the found elements from this repression.
Épater la bourgeoisie!
Strange that once again this call has become relevant.
Yeah. What he said. :)
ReplyDeleteI feel the same way, Keith. Using 'fake' images that a gazillion people can buy almost anywhere takes away from the work. Where would we be (in terms of art history) if, for example, Picasso and Joseph Cornell had done that? In my world, the fiber arts world, this has been a question for decades. If something is a priceless, historical antique, that is one thing; a broken book from a flea market that would end up in the trash eventually, is something different. Keep at it!
ReplyDeleteAppropriation is as old as art itself. I see nothing wrong with using whatever and the artist decides as to the relative value of materials. I would never take an original page from a Guttenberg Bible to use in one of my collages, but something I got at a flea market, or that was gifted to me? Probably.....You go guy! I think what you do would -- does -- lend value to the materials you use, and gives to the world at large out there.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all the comments so far...perhaps the steampunk group is made up of people who are too young to realize that just because something is old doesn't necessarily make it rare or holy.
ReplyDeleteKeith, you have shown through your art and in your workshops a great reverence for the beauty in objects however lowly or rare they may be. Your brilliant vision elevates each component to a higher level making something that is far more valuable and precious than any of its parts. Using the original pieces each with its own story and history definitely contribute to the overall energy and beauty of your creations.
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree with Gayle about overused images taking away from the work. It’s quite sad to see so much art looking all the same.
In support of using copies, etc., I myself emulate materials that I may not have available and also use original items. I believe that making a piece of jewelry with love and good intentions for the wearer also instills great power no matter what it is made of.
I have thought about this subject a lot over the past year. I must admit I had trouble using original items at first because I come from a background in dealing in antiques and the mindset that the item might be the last one on earth was a little daunting. Plus the fact that graphic artist in me wanted to keep originals to manipulate in different ways for different effects. But as I have begun working more and more with these items I understand why using the originals is more important to the art itself. I do not want to make something that someone else can reproduce I want it to be my own art. Keep doing what you are doing and I will keep being inspired.
ReplyDeleteOkay. I totally don't get the vitriolic spew. Using real items ADDS value to the final piece by bringing its own history, its own sensibility creating a whole which ends up being much, much more than the sum of its parts. Just. Don't. Get. It.
ReplyDeleteI spend a lot of time giving my "no valuable antiques were harmed during the making of this project" speech. I try to ascertain the value of something before I use it, but beyond that, using the original item (instead of a copy), lends authenticity and also forces me as an artist, to "get it right the first time" or make it work in a way I wouldn't have expected it to, because I have just one of the item.
ReplyDeleteLet them talk! History will prove that you are the real deal.
Your work is totally unique Keith, anyone who’s really knows you, would know you respect Museum quality pieces. Your art work is to bring to life piece you have found in all types of conditions and make them into a preserved piece of history in a new shape or form. You are giving it a new life, for more people to enjoy
ReplyDeleteI would never use a piece which would be of a museum quality, but to find something in a flea market yes I would go for it
There is a sort of polarity involved in altering/assembling a piece and the great sensitivity an artist must have that ultimately invests the piece with great evocative power. The imprint of the artist and the cultural depth of the components combine to make something significant. Sea-changed objects, even when very old and rare, are not museum candidates are they? Oh but how they can become sublime when they are celebrated and elevated. Keith leads the way.
ReplyDeleteThanks for all your input. I think I ended up making peace with the idea of transforming old objects as an act of respect to the form of that item. Can something be desecrated simply by re-contextualizing it? My opinion is no, but I can see and respect the opposite argument.
ReplyDelete'Value' is a pretty arbitrary structure placed on materials by human beings. Why someone wouldn't flinch at paying $5,000 for a production diamond ring but would consider it absurd to pay the same for a one-of-a-kind piece of art is one of those things that keeps me mystified. I like to think that one of my pieces attains its 'value' not by the elements that make it up, but by the new and ineffable object it has become, whether I'm using a ruby or a tooth.
I appreciate your sentiment, Gayle, about where we might be if, say, Picasso or Cornell were using copies rather than the originals. However, to play devil's advocate - Cornell DID use photocopies in his assemblages - and quite frequently! All of the images of people in those works were copies. Does that dim the resonance of his work? Probably not; they still hold terrific power and poetry. I only know how I feel about my own use of materials - it's the reason I don't prod any of my students into using the real thing if they're feeling unsure.
Keith
Hi Keith,
ReplyDeleteI think the heart of this discussion goes beyond the use of objects, which is why there are such passionate opinions on both sides. As an artist who also appropriates antique found items into his work, I have come to understand that this argument is often more about mortality than anything. On one side there is the argument that something is valuable because it has survived. It was created somewhere a long time ago, has out lived its creators, and now may be one of the few, if not only, copies of itself in existence. The other side consists of those who take it one step further by saying that because an object is old and unique, if it is repurposed, it can be given new life, and live on into the future. On the surface, these would seem to be opposing arguments as the second group most often must alter or destroy the object as it was in its original state. However, the truth is, the argument is pretty much one sided-we all want to be remembered. There are those who take comfort in knowing an object existed long before they were here, and it will still exist long after they are gone. They like the idea that future generations will be able to connect to the past through the object. Then there are those of us in the second group who repurpose items to create commentary on our own existence, and in so doing, show connection to both the past and future through our efforts. I sometimes wonder if it isn't all just human vanity-the forlorn belief that we'll be missed when we're gone. Would it be such a big deal if we weren't? Maybe just being alive is the most valuable gift.
Mikel
Dear Keith,
ReplyDeleteI am absolutely fascinated with the objects you create (and I don't think they bring any harm to the old pieces they are made of, on the contrary, it's an enlivening process). Please, tell me if I can have your permission to post on my blog images of your digital artworks. You will be of course credited and the site, as well as this blog, will be clearly indicated.
Thank you so much,
Ora
(http://ora25.wordpress.com/)
Ah Livejournal, home of opinionated drama.
ReplyDeleteI have to say as someone who grew up around 'precious antiques' and has both lived and worked in a museum- just because it's old, doesn't make it valuable. Like you I construct my pieces from things that are already well gone in terms of condition.
The argument that all antiques are valuable is a ridiculous one that betrays the secretly held opinion that modern art (or worse- craft art) is essentially worthless.
I have no trouble using 150 year old letters in my paper collage, because...they're just letters. Interesting and full of intimate history, but none the less. The majority of an antiques worth is based on sentimental or aesthetic attachment- some pieces have historical value, such as the inkwell used by Charles Dickens, or the walking stick of Abraham Lincoln. It does not make every walking stick that came from the same factory just as valuable. People forget that mass-produced factory rubbish did not magically start after WWII.
Arg- I could rant about this all day. Thanks for posting this, I'm off to that LJ comm (which I'm a member of!) to offer my opinion.
Keith,
ReplyDeleteI have been a fan of your work for sometime. I agree with the point that if something is falling apart then it needs to be used for something else. I was recently in a Antique store viewing ambrotypes, now becasue someone valued them at lets say 300.00 does it make it worth it, I say not. The same photo could be out of frame and in the same condition but worth less. A Basquiat for instance is worth so much but to someone else it's childs play; The same with a Pollock. Personaly it is all about the end means of the piece at hand, thought out or spontanious if it works use it. Some might say the same about Ebendorf and some of his pieces using s cross. Good or bad it's publicity, and those "steampunkers" a FAD a name to call the fashion worn in the early ninties. What you do goes beyond anything they could even falthom of producing. Keep kicking butt.
I had the pleasure of attending one of Keith's workshops a few years ago. One of the things I learned about him was that he looks upon found objects with awe and wonder. He holds respect for each object no matter if it is found at a flea market, a junk yard or a river bank.
ReplyDeleteDiana
Dont get me started on the steampunk thing.
ReplyDeleteThe gorgeous partner don makes steampunk jewelry and objects, and his skin crawls when some magazines pick up on the idea in a diluted, commercial way, and simply stick a few watch faces on something and call it steampunk.
We love the style, dress in it, etc...
you go, boy, stay true to your convictions and fuck the rest of them.
There will always be the "elevator music" version of everything creative.
Thanks for all your comments - this makes for a very interesting thread. I had wanted to lay my comment down at that steampunk fashion forum, but didn't want to join LiveJournal, as it seemed really spammy. So I took the beef over here - I hope to get some of those folks over here for some more discussion...
ReplyDeleteKL
This seems an eternal argument, as soon as one leaves the cutesy world of scrapbooking and turns to more "serious" art. But most seem to understand the difference between destroying originals and re-using found, and otherwise unwanted, objects.
ReplyDeleteI have just recently been aware of steampunkers and I can't grasp the point. I get the use of materials but it seems to me that it is all just fluff that isn't poetry. You create poetry in your work, and not just some re-invention from the turn of the century. Do what you do and don't let the fluff of a look rather than a artifact. There is a lot to be said about the word "Steampunk", if you catch my evaporation.
ReplyDeleteThank you to all that contributed to Keith's comments, this thread.
ReplyDeleteI have been standing on the cliff, wanting to jump. Wanting and waiting to jump into that unknown world of 'ART'. Knowing that 'ART' has been waiting for me to take that step, the step of courage. Courage to use those bits of history in my art. To some how authenticate my work with my gathered bits of this & that from here & there. Years of collecting, and fears of betraying history.
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Today I shall 'JUMP'. Today, I will make 'Art'. Today I 'CREATE' using my bits of history!
Having seen your incredible creations "in person," I must add a comment here - your work is so unique and awe-inspiring... true history-making art in its own right. I cannot imagine a more worthy afterlife for any antique fragment or object than to be encased or used in one of your pieces of artwork. You have given dignity to these objects not only by the incredible finished results but also by the care you spend in crafting every exquisite detail. Your work has inspired me to see my world - and the mundane, tossed aside or forgotten - with new appreciation.
ReplyDeleteHey Keith, We must be in sync or something for as Jo Archer said - a similar discussion ensued on my blog. But it was, as here, very constructive. Clearly I am in total agreement with you.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who knows you knows our reverance for antiques and using them in your art takes the, usually discarded, to a level it could not have achieved if it were left in its found state.
Hope your trip abroad is successful. xo
I arrived by way of the altered page, and as a desecrator of old books I guess I'm on your side, I never use materials with historical value in my work, but so many books of beauty end up as garbage or pulp, I'm on a mission to save them one book at a time, since they foten become another book, I feel they have a rebirth not an end. (and grl + dog, I love that elevator music comment.)
ReplyDeleteHey Keith,
ReplyDeleteI get some of the same kinds of criticisms for using crosses, Bible pages and religious elements and relics in my work. For me, using these things draws attention to them, and honors them, in a way that otherwise might not have happened. It's the soul behind these things that makes them special. They don't loose that just by being used in a different context. If anything, it's enhanced. Obviously, I agree with you!
People need to get over themselves, we are impermanent creatures and everything we make is impermanent. Art, books, poetry, words, bibles are created to be appreciated. People want to save things forever and ever and ever....let go! things turn to dust, things rust....things bust, who cares!
ReplyDelete............Nice..^_^v................
ReplyDelete