I don’t think you need apologize, I am happy to have you address those points for me, which it sounds like you have given a lot of thought to. You are right – the simple truth is that art is a very narrow field whether people want to face that fact or not. The consequence of that fact is that everyone else thinks it’s o.k. to eliminate the funding for art classes in schools, the NEA etc., and spend that money on tax cuts for the wealthy and/or bombs.

Oftentimes, culture, art, and artists can cross geographic and ideological borders more effectively than any government, using the tools and tradition of cultural diplomacy.

Brendan McCall
Artistic Director
Ensemble Free Theater norway

Your points are generally good, and I acknowledge that my little-read corner of the Internet is unlikely to be the site of an art world communication breakthrough! If the HH post came off as self-congratulatory, that’s unfortunate. It is an issue that I care a lot about, and my writing may sound bombastic as a result.

In any case, I haven’t, in over a decade of involvement with the art world, heard wind of a panel discussion or read about a graduate program dedicated to communicating fine art’s relevance to general populace. There have been essays and articles, but nothing like the concerted effort made by contemporary science writers to identify the problem and generate support from the scientists (who, by the way, resisted for years — since the writers were pointing out their failures). Of course, the federal arms of science are better-funded (as Chris’ piece above points out), but meager funding isn’t reason enough to shrug off a vital need.

Giant Robot and Fecal Face are quite popular, it’s true. Part of the reason I was excited to be moving from NYC to SF is to try the west coast art scene on for size. Back east, however, the art world generally doesn’t make room for artist of GR or FF’s tribe (at least, not in earnest). “Lowbrow” ain’t a compliment in NYC. “It’s not art, it’s illustration,” is the standard dismissal I heard for years about lowbrow art. Even Marcel Dzama is still despised by many artists; I thrilled that he’s found such success and I hope that lowbrow art makes further inroads into the art world; it could do all parties much good.

I don’t intend to “sweep away the life’s work” of a Saltz or Schjeldahl (both of whom I appreciate a great deal), but the fact remains that 95% of my non-art world friends not only have no idea who Schjeldahl is (and I’ll get to why they MIGHT know Saltz in a moment), they don’t recognize the names of the artists he or Saltz writes about and, when introduced to the artwork, they typically react against it. Granted, the lion’s share of my friends (and my blog’s readers) are in science, medicine, conservation, public policy, or non-profit social/environmental aid; it’s certainly possible that those professional provinces attract people who celebrate “rolling up sleeves” and therefore harbor more resentment of fine art (since, in their estimation, as I so often hear, art is masturbatory and selfish because it doesn’t do anything concrete to fix the world’s ills). They’re wrong, I think you’ll agree, to dismiss all of art of those grounds, but their critique isn’t wholly unfair; it’s true that the narrow confines of the luxury market-approved, high-art world are largely irrelevant to the so-called “real world.” Moreover, shouldn’t we want to be inspiring THOSE people, the ones who are dedicated to “making a difference” (for lack of a better hackneyed phrase)?! Instead, most of the art world seems interested in reaching out to other art world professionals; it has become something of a vacuum.

I take some solace in the fact that the problems of the contemporary art world are on the mind of some major critics, including the likes of Holland Cotter and Peter Plagens. Still, what is it that will be the catalyst to change? Could it be a television show like “Work of Art,” ridiculous on many levels and yet so accessible and fun? (And that’s why Saltz will be more familiar than Schjeldahl, if not yet as beloved as Tim Gunn!)

Anyway, I’m sorry Chris….this totally hi-jacked your thread. Maybe you’d consider posting your above critique at HH, Christine, to generate more dialogue?