In the remaining loose change of isms (Op Art, Minimal Art,
Photorealism, and so forth), the definitional boundaries become more
and more prescribed, creating the impression less of principalities of
thought than of street gangs tyrannizing a few blocks of turf. The first
great modern approach, Impressionism, devised a technique that would
allow the artist to engage the world in a fresh way. All that has devolved
to the point where any meaningful engagement of content is almost
entirely abandoned by artists as they scurry about, groping for techniques
by which to define themselves. This takes us to the depleted present.
It’s been my experience that when an artist has nothing to talk about
he talks about himself; this is why I’ve waited until the end to invoke the
authorial “I”, not as the subject of my examination, but rather as a fel-
low traveler in this sorry mess. As an artist I write criticism in part to
avoid the ills I describe. As Yeats once said, “We are but critics or but
half create,” and indeed criticism supplies the tools an artist can use to
burnish his or her own work. Far from advocating an artist-less art, I
hope the spirit of self-criticism might serve to right the balance in this
lopsided equation.
After a hundred years this much is clear: the desire to be different cor-
rupts the desire to be understood. When the “avant” is all that distin-
guishes the “garde,” the positional advantage is quickly lost; every
frontier eventually becomes just another staid suburb. At a basic level,
seeing is the most powerful way individuals transcend their physical lim-
its and penetrate the physical world that surrounds them. Narcissism,
however, abrogates that contract and keeps individuals forever locked
within themselves. It is by accepting that an artist is not the main event
but a member of the audience, by embracing the difference between aris-
tocratic imparting and egalitarian sharing, that the powerful bond of
communication can be reestablished.
Art must also wean itself from all the justifications of words. If the
visual arts are anything, they are mute! This handicap helps separate suc-
cessful work from the failures. Meaning isn’t supplied through annota-
tions; in a world rife with uncertainty, the intent of great art is clear, and
the role of the artist can help facilitate that clarity. While I don’t agree
with William Gaddis that an artist is nothing more than the dregs of his
art, there are self-effacing ways for artists to assert themselves. Flaubert
put it nicely when he wrote, “The artist must be in his work like God in
His Creation, invisible and all powerful so that He is felt everywhere but
not seen.” A little invisibility is a divine thing: it allows creators to attend
to their creations. Now there’s an article of faith even an unbeliever can
embrace!^1
More Matter and Less Art 193