Is art critique experiencing a crisis? If so, when and why did it begin?

I would not speak of an art critique crisis. One could say, however, that while art has changed significantly over the years, the way we speak about it has remained strangely stereotypical. This is an interesting realization; it appears that the way we think about art is more uniform than the art form itself. At the same time, in the last two hundred years or so we have repeatedly expressed skepticism towards art. Hegel was one of the first to say that contemporary art has not fulfilled its potential. I do not consider this a crisis of art. Rather, it signifies that we live in an era which views art rather idealistically. As a result, however, we lose the ability to assert ourselves in contemporary art. The individual thus projects this idealism onto the future or more commonly onto the past. This is also related to the perception that during the Middle Ages, Antiquity, or any other earlier period, art could connect entire societies, that it could heal people, that art could provide fulfillment and so on.

You have written about art religion. Has contemporary art become a “relic” for a certain elite?

“Art religion” means that art itself has become an item of religious worship. In comparison with centuries ago when art was a servant intended to express religious content, it has now become the content itself. People believe that they themselves are capable of providing sense, solution, and redemption; that they wield transcendent potential. In other words, the idea of art independence exists today: art is not determined by themes and tasks from other spheres (the Church or the court) but art’s identity is a derivative of art itself. While this notion demonstrates an idealistic vision of art, without it art would be less confident. In my opinion, however, art has become presumptuousness. Artists increasingly favor art forms which are hermetic, inflexible, and difficult to understand, and the wider audience struggles to follow them; this has created the illusion that art is hiding a secret. But if you actually ask what a piece of artwork is supposed to mean, you may be skeptical of the answer.

Is art religion so influential that the general public visits contemporary art museums as it used to visit churches? Or are people actually not interested?

You are right in one respect: if contemporary art is autonomous, mysterious, and hermetic, the wider public is often excluded from it. But on the other hand, some exhibitions are in fact visited by the masses who form long queues in front of museums. This is really a cultural event. If you are familiar with a piece of art which has been reproduced many times, you will want to see it at least once in person; it is the same concept as when you listen to a music artist at home and wish to see him/her in concert. You will want to see a “live” performance at least once. Art is no exception; you also want to see it “live.” Even standing in the queue is part of the experience. Lacking space and being shoved in one direction or another in crowded museums is part of the experience. The feeling is that you’re in a compressed, small place. Art simply provides an occasion for a certain type of experience.

What role does money play in art?

Money currently retains art’s idealistic image. Let us note the current incredibly high market price for art, especially at auctions where records have been broken repeatedly and millions have been paid for singular pieces of art. This has created a form of sublimity. I cannot believe that a painting by Jackson Pollock could cost 140 million euros. I would understand if the Sistine Chapel was bought for the same amount of money. But 140 million euros for simply one painting, painted during one afternoon? I begin to wonder. These extraordinarily high prices have created precisely what the avant-garde artist hoped to achieve: that art would excite people, that their art would signalize a special state of body and mind. But today these special states of body, mind, and transcendence are mainly achieved through high prices. They represent a part or even a final accomplishment of the artwork.

You speak of an aura which surrounds contemporary art. Can a wider critical debate remove the aura from art? Can art survive without an aura?

First of all, one must consider what created this aura. In reality, the aura does not solely originate from the artwork itself, but also from its price and perhaps its name if it is unusual. With regard to modern art, the aura also originates from the “white cube” concept, i.e., when artwork is presented in an unusual environment which isolates it. If you were to remove all these factors which create the aura, artwork would be left to its own devices.

We could do an experiment using Darwinist terminology and explore how large the “ecological niche” would need to be for art to survive. What happens if we remove art from the white cube? Much of what we admire about modern art would most likely not survive; it would be difficult to differentiate art from the everyday items we are surrounded by.

Another consequence is that artwork would still be recognized as art; it would be perceived and valued by many people outside of the environment which creates the aura. Suddenly the division between folk art and fine art would no longer matter. Rather, folk and fine art would most probably interlink. Furthermore, the spasms brought about by grand idealistic notions of art would indeed end. Perhaps we would even wonder how art had become so twisted and unnatural in the last two hundred years. Something like a “repeated unification” of different types of esthetic creation (free art and useful art) would thus follow.

How is advertising connected with contemporary art?

Assuming that modern art is based on an idealistic perception of art (which means that in its attempt for autonomy it is not dependent on demand) it is inconsequential how many people follow it. A modern artist does not define himself on the basis of quantitatively measurable success. On the other hand, advertising is completely different structurally because it is highly targeted. It should have an effect on as many people as possible. As we say, the customer is always right. This is related to advertising too since advertisements must suit the customer. But this is not applicable to art. The recipient is not king. Rather, he/she must submissively obey the artwork and accept his/her position as the onlooker. The recipient must put effort into the visit in order to be permitted to feel the aura, the transcendence, the magnificence of the piece of artwork.

Therefore a completely different hierarchy exists in advertising than in art. If the customer, as king, says that he does not like something, the advertised item does not stand a chance. In order to avoid this, market research is conducted in advance. A product’s advertisement is just as important as a product’s aesthetic. Both are considered. Research verifies in advance what the consumer wishes to buy and experience and how this wish relates to this or that product. Then companies try to convert these wishes as precisely as possible into products and advertisements. Therefore, the general aesthetic of advertising is fundamentally tautological; it offers exactly what the consumer wants to have anyway.

The aesthetic of art, on the other hand, is created completely differently. No artist will conduct an opinion poll about whether he should paint this or that way. He provokes and often even shocks the public precisely because he does not wish to repeat what is expected. It is natural that only some people will accept the new artwork and permit the painting to change them a little.

But isn’t advertising also a form of art and art a form of advertising?

That is naturally only relative to one’s definition of art. Much of what falls under advertising could be considered art today if we reject the notions of magnificence and transcendence, and if we define art as anything which excites us and broadens our understanding of life. In this case, we would also have to admit that advertisements can be just as innovative, just as sophisticated, and just as diverse as traditional works of art. Perhaps the advertising industry is even more sophisticated and diverse.

In my work I dedicate equal pleasure, time, and effort to art as well as to product aestheticism. The latter field does have a lot going for itself; the aesthetic of consumerism can express our current mentality. As a cultural scientist, it would be almost neglectful not to spend time on the subject. There is a topos according to which art is the expression of the era. To a large extent the aesthetic of products and advertising is an expression of our time. When we look at the materials used by trend spotters, we find that they almost never consider contemporary art as a factor in societal development. On the other hand, they do consider advertising, product design, and mass media formats such as sitcoms on TV. Due to two hundred years of celebrated autonomy, art has become practically meaningless in indicating society’s development.

As an autonomous subject, art does not want to rely on anything but itself; it does not insist on being an indicator for something else. Art is surrounded by its own self-made, privileged asylum. Metaphorically, we could say that art has become a king without a kingdom. And while advertising is much cruder and lower than a king, it controls an empire.

What is “non-art?”

Just as it is impossible to say that art must have certain attributes to be art, it is not possible to say that something must have certain attributes not to be art. The same item in a different context may either become non-art from art or art from non-art. So it works both ways, and the decisive factor is the frame, the context.

Do you think that there are specific criteria for art as well as aesthetic quality? What qualities do you think make an artist successful?

All criteria of success are basically related to the context. The aura also comes from how the work of art is presented, how expensive it is, and whether it has a name or not, etc. As such, criteria can also be understood as the criteria of quality. Thus, the fact that something is a good piece of artwork is not necessarily drawn from the existence of the artwork itself. An essentialist vision of art is not sustainable. For art to be regarded as significant, it must also fulfill the criteria of originality. But not even this is decisive on its own. Think of the success of appropriation art; artists became famous precisely because they did not create anything new. The new was not doing anything new.

How does art change during a period of relative prosperity?

Art religion is not so widely spread as it used to be even fifty years ago. This is also related to how art has changed and how the approach to art has changed on account of prosperity. In times of scarcity, art is considered to have healing properties. Now, however, art has become connected with the phenomenon of glamour and star cult. Art has increasingly become a symbol of social status. This is a result of modern art’s autonomy, since it is hermetically fragile, dismissive, and does not treat every recipient as king; consequently, the one who adorns himself with it looks especially cool. Those who accept this dismissive character of modern art and identify with it feel just as sovereign as the artwork they surround themselves with. Modern art has become a means to threaten others, to keep a distance from them, and to create a hierarchy. There is hardly another status symbol which is as compelling and as powerful as modern art.

Wasn’t art always a symbol of power?

Yes, but in another sense. Before, it was possible to assume that those who have art also have a lot of money. It is similar as when someone buys a yacht today. People envy the rich because the rich can afford something they can’t. It is different with art. Hardly anyone is envious when a rich person buys a Jackson Pollock. They would have spent the money on something else. But at the same time, they realize that there must be a reason why someone would pay that much for a Pollock. They don’t understand it. And so they feel inferior, intellectually and academically, to people who buy and identify themselves with modern art. Modern art serves as a status symbol for some and shoves others to the back row. They feel ignorant, as if they are missing a gene or enzyme which would enable them to understand modern art.

Is there still tradition in modern and post-modern art?

In modern art there is a tradition of breaking traditions. Since the beginning of the twentieth century (the great epoch of the avant-garde), every artist has tried to be original, different, and separate from whoever has before him. Autonomy meant rejecting whatever came before. This is a fundamental turning point; prior to the twentieth century, art history was perceived as the history of progress. Every artist tried to surpass his predecessors. The will to surpass changed to the will to destroy in the modern era. To be successful now means to be free of conventions, rules, and standards. This turning point has become the new way. Thus, the development of modern art can be described as a continuous turning point in traditions.

Can art history exist without traditions?

No, not necessarily. Every turning point in traditions also contains some legacy of the tradition. When a painter says that he will use a material which has not yet been used, it is a turning point because the recipient also knows that the material was never worthy of art before. And so new artwork lives on the basis of its relation to past traditions, even when they are negated.

Is it possible to come to a point where everything will be destroyed?

No, I don’t think so. It has been attempted many times, and it is often proclaimed in modern art. A countless number of artists have wanted to paint the last painting. But whether something looks traditional and backward or whether it looks like an unsurpassable pinnacle is only related to context. Artists try to depict their predecessors—who also tried to achieve this end—as conservative. Artists themselves try to influence the way art history is written. Modern art could be described as an experimental field on which each artist tests again and again how far he can go. How many turning points does one have to achieve to become a renowned artist? But on the other hand, risking too many turning points will result in being excluded from the world of art. Distancing oneself too much from what is considered art today, will threaten the individual from being recognized as an artist at all.

How do you envision the future of art?

I imagine that what is considered art today—in the high elite sense—will become marginal. Only a small group of freaks will occupy themselves with it. They will be rich freaks, but their melancholy will have no effect on society at all. They will schedule meet-ups, similar to wine collectors who like to enhance their knowledge but do not expect other people to share their hobby. As art becomes marginalized, the aesthetic power and potential of advertising and product aesthetic could receive greater recognition. In the future, history of the development and production of individual products, as well as the knowledge of different forms of commercial aesthetic will become a part of education. This does, of course, depend on the culture of prosperity continuing.

Can we still use the term folk art today?

The term “folk art” is not really used anymore. Now we use the term popular culture and mass aesthetic, which brings us again to advertising and product design. As I mentioned before, advertising and product design are created on the basis of market research, and they reflect the wishes and visions of many people. Thus they are, in essence, a form of contemporary “folk art.” In the last few years, something enormous has happened mainly on account of the Internet. Consider all of the possibilities that webpages such as YouTube and Flickr opened up. These webpages are sites of contemporary folk art where millions of people display their paintings and artwork and where other users comment, amend, mix, and redo. This is how the complex creative process is made. This is essentially contemporary “folk art.”

Can you name one contemporary artist who you like and tell us why?

I think David Hockney is important to me. He is a real pictor doctus: an educated and skilled artist who has absorbed much from the art history of Western art and transformed it into new forms. He creates highly reflective paintings. Nevertheless, you must know what they refer to in order to value them. Many of his paintings initially appear to be quite accessible, but it is obvious that there is more to them. They are not simple paintings, but twisted, intelligent paintings which lead us from one position to another. You can see the artist’s image chain which reflects his chain of thought.

On top of that, Hockney is not afraid to work on very traditional topics such as landscapes. But it is evident from the way he paints them that his work has been affected by the media of film and photography. Hockney is also very aware of aesthetics; so he does not limit himself to what happens in fine arts, but he also absorbs much of what goes on in advertising. What I value about Hockney can be summarized as follows: I am pleased when I see intelligent paintings. One could say that Hockney’s work exhibits an extraordinarily high IQ.

Karolina Fabelová is the program director of the Soros Centre for Contemporary Arts in Prague.