Jasper who?
A book release by Kenny Schachter
Me&Ro
239 Elizabeth, NYC

November 15th – December 20th, 2003
Opening Reception: Saturday, November 15th, 6 - 8pm

Kenny Schachter/Rove
t. 212 807-6669 f. 645-0743
www.RoveTV.net schachter@mindspring.com

---

INTERVIEW

Kenny Schachter interviewed by Elizabeth Bard
New York, July 2003

What led you to this project?
In an effort to prove how alienated and esoteric the art world has become, I always say, when I talk to university students, that if you interviewed 100 people on the street and asked them if they were familiar with Matthew Barney, less than 1% would recognize the name. So, I decided to test my theory, and I conducted the interviews myself. Guess what? I found out I was exactly right.

In 1949, Jackson Pollock was major news. An article in Life magazine showed a crouching Pollock, paint dripping, cigarette dangling, with the headline, "Jackson Pollock: Is He The Greatest Living Painter in the United States?" Pollock was America's first "art star," yet it seems that contemporary art has fallen farther and farther from the general public's consciousness. I'm not saying that the collective populous ever uniformly cherished art, but it was part of the discourse and the public imagination in a way that has faded significantly.

Why? Is it the art? The artists? The art world?
Everyone in the professional art world bears some responsibility: the dealers who make going to galleries such an inhospitable experience; the artists whose only aim in life is to climb the ladder, to get into better galleries, collections, and museums; and the critics who write in an unintelligible language that communicates nothing more than the breadth of their vocabulary.

We are at an historic high, with more people making and looking at art than ever, but the business of art is virtually closed to the general public. Art has become a niche market that would rather embrace its own than cultivate new audiences. But art canít exist without an audience. The art world has painted itself into a corner. Those in the art world have tried so hard to limit their audience to the people who have the money to buy that it cuts the public off at the knees.

To see just how far contemporary art has drifted from our general consciousness, I conducted, during the summer of 2002, a non-scientific survey featuring on-the-street interviews with more than 100 randomly selected individuals in Manhattan. The idea was to gauge general perceptions of the relevance of contemporary art. I questioned a cross-section of people, from Wall Street to Harlem, to see how they felt about, among other things, galleries, museums, technology in art, and notions of beauty. I read a laundry list of names, from Picasso to Matthew Barney, then watched for the signs of recognition that would tell me how successful the art world has been in championing its heroes.

Is this drift, this skepticism, universal? Or is it just an American thing?
In England and Germany for example, they is a higher recognition and awareness of contemporary artists. Tracey Emin, Damien Hirst, and other members of the still percolating YBA movement are A-list celebrities. Just about every cab driver knows something about either the art or the antics: Emin, drunk, nearly puking on live TV; Hirst's filleted animals. The fodder for the tabloids has culminated in advertising campaigns featuring Emin posing in Vivienne Westwood and peddling booze. I doubt this cynical angle would float in Puritanical America. Hirst's signature vitrines are aped in all sorts of media, from political cartoons to insurance ads. Only in a society where the contemporary art is known to the general public can it be parodied in this way.

In Germany, many may doubt the artistic merit of a pile of fat casually clumped in the corner of a room, but the majority know a Joseph Beuys when they see one. Furthermore, it is not uncommon to see one of his unlimited editions in the home of a middle class family with no art contacts. Not since Andy Warholís cameo on The Love Boat has an American artist neared that level of notoriety.

European mass media is paying attention as well. In any given year, the UK's 5 measly TV stations boast more contemporary arts programming than the past 5 years in the US. There have been countless UK documentaries on artists of all stripes, and many instances where artists have been commissioned to create original segments for TV. The US equivalent is a skeptical segment on 60 Minutes, "Yes, But is it Art?" where a busload of kids are confronted with a Basquiat painting, and then are asked if they think they could do a better job.

Critic Robert Hughes had a PBS special a number of years back where he expounded upon how initials scratched into a tree were more artistic than contemporary art. Hughes was some prescient choice to helm the curator's post for the upcoming Venice Biennale, shame he withdrew. Recently in the US, there was a monotonous thematic show entitled Egg, which touched on art from time to time and was in turn cancelled. Last year, Art 21 profiled a group of contemporary artists over the course of four episodes. Though the reported audience for the entire broadcast, totaled 2 million, and more episodes were ordered, the show stuck to an unprogressive, uninspired format that lacked even rudimentary entertainment value. No surprise, perhaps, that financing has yet to be locked into place for continuing the series.

What came out of your search?
The fantastic, eye-opening revelation that art affects and impacts more people than I ever imagined. Not only are people's definitions of art expansive, but it seems that art is truly integral to their day-to-day existence. Or so said a majority of the people I queried.

It was a strange mix. Though clearly gone are the days of Picasso or Abstract Expressionism, the days when an artist or movement held sway in the imagination of the general public, art is prominent in the minds of many people as a personalized inward notion of creativity. Contemporary art was deemed to be a specialized professional niche, something akin to, say, nuclear physics or artificial intelligence. But under the broad category of artistic expression, the interviewees named a wide of variety of activitiesófrom cutting hair to rap music, from architecture to the way a person walks across the streetóbut not contemporary art itself.

Why do people seem to feel so alienated by both contemporary art and the system that promotes it?
What makes people so suspect of the art world is the pseudo-erudite mindset, the feigned universe of scarcity and exclusivity that is alluded to by all. It is designed to promote the idea that art can only be understood by the few, and owned by even fewer. Itís something for the hyper-wealthy and specifically not for the mainstream.

Aside from mirroring present-day political and social woes that no one wants to face, another reason cited for the disinclination toward new art forms was the consensus that they are lacking a traditional sense of skill, technique, and human touch involved in the processes. This was especially true in the realms of computer and video art, which were seen not jus as a short cut, but akin to cheating. Another telling comment was, "[contemporary art is] images of images of images," which suggests removal, or distancing of art production from primary experience or traditional notions of beauty. Most people were unaware of the derision the Impressionists encountered, for just this reason, when they first exhibited their paintings, versus the universal admiration and blockbuster status that Monet and Co. enjoy today. "Target stores have all the Van Gogh prints," gushed one interviewee.

Are people angry, bewildered, or just bored?
All of the above. I think there has been a backlash to art that is considered shocking. Call it "The Sensation Syndrome." In the wake of the 1999 Saatchi exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum, people were inured from being affected by art judged to be offensive. Today, there is a weariness, numbness, and level of familiarity with art meant to affront. Itís regarded as almost academic. In the words of one interviewee, "Breaking the rules is practically a college course."

What is the public's perception of artists? What do they think of the art world?
There was a clear skepticism. Many commented that contemporary art was an inside joke or "a racket," and not of the Richard Prince variety. The only idea about geometry in art shared by all the interviewees was the perception that a clear line delineates the real world from the art world. They are distinct spheres where there is no crossover, only mutual alienation. Though the characterizations ranged from soulless, to fraudulent, to too cerebral, they were all geared toward rationalizing the dismissal of contemporary art. Artists were accused of failing to make an effort to connect with the rest of society. "Artists live in a postmodern dreamy-dreamy world," said one, speaking for many.

And of the art itself?
As one person said, "Now, it's greed, it's just making money. It's become big business, like everything else. You buy a name." Art is clearly seen as part of the Prada parade, and artists, as nothing more than brand names. People buy into trends or fashion, whether or not there is full comprehension of the significance of the artwork at hand. "It's about buying and owning, rather than about appreciating beauty."

What about museums?
There was a feeling that museums are part of the patrimony of the country, something not to be profited from, something at everyone's disposal. Still, many people seemed turned-off by the content of the art, "New art is like, you know, Coors Light," as well as by the environments where it is presented. There was much antipathy relating to the art-going experience. "I don't like it when they follow you around everywhere and they don't want you to touch anything." was a common sentiment. Galleries and museums were often characterized by such adjectives of intimidation as clinical, sterile, and elitist.

Have flashy architecture and blockbuster exhibitions helped or hurt?
Blockbuster exhibitions are fine and dandy, but we need to imagine beyond yet another rendition of Impressionism, another match-up between Picasso and Matisse. Enough. Flashy new museums are wonderful, but it's what goes on inside that could use some help. Someone please help.

Despite the phenomenal popularity of such cutting-edge architecture as Gehry's Guggenheim in Bilbao, there tends to be a tedium in the sameness of gallery interiors the world over, not to mention a sense that they were designed for a rarified public: "People who go there are predominantly people who are interested in art anyway." The cold glances of gallery and museum staffs do not help: "You feel pressure to look a certain way." In the end, commercial galleries would better serve the public by removing barriers, rather than erecting them.

Is there one belief, in particular, that all the interviewees expressed about art?
People love art. They love making things and love taking a creative approach to life's everyday problems and issues. Art has a democratic definition that is more expansive than anyone in the art world, myself included, could have ever conceived. It is this openness that must be embraced, not shunned.

Beauty was also an integral component of art in the minds of many, but the definition of beauty went way beyond the idea of "a pretty picture." A chorus of interviewees dutifully repeated the inevitable cliche about beauty being in the eye of the beholder, nevertheless it was refreshing to hear so many sound off on the subjective nature of taste.

Still, people were skeptical about access to the art world for the common man, "I'm too poor to be a collector, too untalented to be an artist," and even more skeptical about the art itself: "I could spread myself with peanut butter and play around Washington Square Park and call it art." On acclaimed Brit bad boy, Damien Hirst, one person said, "What he does is interesting for three minutes." Another was cynical about the apparent ease of creating art, "You can turn it into art if you frame it." On the prevalence of the Internet and computers now ubiquitous in biennials and galleries: "Computers are good for tracking locust infestations in the Third World. A computer found a computer for my son when he needed one 4 years ago." Take that, "Whitney Bitstreams."

Are people aware of the history of art?
Whether people are aware of the history of art is not really an issue. (I had no idea when I started professionally, being wholly self-taught.) It's certainly not intrinsic to being exposed to, absorbed by, and enjoying art. What is interesting is how poor and ineffectual the art world is in presenting its contemporary leading lights as opposed to its stars of yesteryear, like Picasso and Warhol.

When I recited a laundry list of artists, there seemed to be a universal awareness of Picasso and Warhol, "He's done wonders for advertising," yet less than a handful of people recognized John Currin, Janine Antoni, and Cecily Brown. Matthew Barney, perhaps the most acclaimed American artist of his generation, got no more that three or four nods not surprising given his and his dealer's reluctance to seek wide dissemination of his art and films (prior to his recent retrospective). As Matthew Barney was quoted in a New York Times Magazine article by Michael Kimmelman (October 10, 1999) entitled 'The Importance of Matthew Barney,' "If a work is shown too many times, something gets stolen from it. You come to it with preconceptions, or you get tired of it. And it's the same with an artist. So I try to protect myself and my work." The result of this protectionist attitude is that the artist is not only an enigma, but also virtually unknown outside the inner circle of the art world. To quote one interviewee, "Uh, I know Barneys the store."

What's the solution?
The solution is for people in the trenches of the art world to look beyond their tiny, familiar audience. The art world must decide to venture outside the established universe of known collectors, critics, dealers, and curators. It will take some very forward thinking to cultivate new audiences, and the determination to establish and nurture new relationships. We must look past the same shows in the same venues with the same artists. We must look past the tired international circuit with the predictable international cliques of art stars that repeats itself ad infinitum.

We are on the threshold of an unprecedented opportunity to broaden the appreciation of art worldwide. A pair of examples from the museum world shed light on how the entrepreneurial sector (i.e. galleries) can seize the initiative to combat the flagrant phobia of contemporary art. One recent noble effort was the Las Vegas Guggenheim, which stood ready to show unapologetically new art to a new audience, until 9.11 halted the controversial experiment. Another example is the Palais des Tokyo in Paris, which has been transformed into a raw, unorthodox space with the lively atmosphere and late hours of a nightclub, and filled with fresh, challenging art. If private galleries would only take the cue, we might very well welcome a new dawn in the acceptance and patronage of contemporary art.