2/19/10 Required Reading Reflection: "Applied Art Between Nostalgia and Innovation," by Kristian Berg Nielsen

Today, I visited the Kunsthal Charlottenborg to see the Color State exhibit by Malene Landgreen. The exhibit consisted of six rooms, some with bridgthly painted walls, others with panels of fabric, others with sculptural or architectural elements, and many with some combination of these elements. Because I was with a class, I was presented with a set of questions to consider when viewing the work. One of these questions asked what the work was, design? painting? drawing? sculpture? After walking through the exhibit several times, the class came together to discuss the questions. People's opinions about the work varied greatly, particularly concerning the question I just raised. What was this exhibit? Many argued that is was design: the way that it interacted with space, light, and even function made them think that the rooms were not art so much as atmospheres. On the other hand, the conceptual element of the exhibit, it's hand painted nature, and use of color theory made others quite convinced that the work was painting, simply in a contemporary context. But I think our professor asked us this question because there was no right answer. Landgreen's work exists in that space between art and design and that is precisely why it is so compelling.

Color State, by Malene Landgreen
http://kunsthalcharlottenborg.dk/library/pictures/picturesScaled/max750_450/456759.jpg

In his essay, "Applied Art Between Nostalgia and Innovation," Nielsen considers that perhaps the reason that applied art still captures so many people despite it's being anachronistic is because it exists in a similarly in between space. Citing Peter Michael Hornung, Neilsen suggests that maybe we should

"regard the 'fine' artist and the craft artist as 'members of the same creative fraternity': perhaps we should see the great variation in specialized designation for creators as indicators of an inertia in institutional boundaries shaped by education, museum categories, art criticism... that is, regard the classic distinction between 'fine art' and 'the lesser arts', i.e. the applied arts, as meaningless" (44).

In other words, we can stop looking at creative processes as being on one of the two sides of the artistic binaries. These binaries invariable place one higer than the other so that today, fine arts are considered a higher artistic form than applied arts, even though applied arts require just as much skill and creativity as the fine arts. And both serve similar functions: fine and applied arts should have some regard for the aesthetic, both are a reflection and/or critique of society, and both improve daily life, even if their effects are experienced differently.

I found it particularly interesting that Neilson used the Bauhaus as an example of an institution where "all types of visual and plastic artistic creation could thrive together," especially after my previous post on the sexism that existed in the Bauhaus (45). Yes, weaving and architecture were taught in the same school, but that did not mean that these two fields were valued equally in the way that Hornung suggests. Instead, the binary between lesser and greater art was upheld through gender. Women participated in weaving and ceramics, men in architecture and design and so the disciplines were valued accordingly. Interestingly, even in Hornung's quote, a "fraternity" of creativity is referenced. Now, I know I'm nitpicking with semantics here, but we cannot ignore this blatant reference to the art world as a man's sphere. Two lose examples of this gender hierarchy could be:
- a man is a chef but a woman is a cook
- a man is a fashion designer but a woman is a seamstress

Another binary that we can consider in the rich/poor divide. Could it be a coincidence that at the turn of the century when the debate over craftsmanship v. mass production was first rearing its nasty head coincided with the emergence of communism? And that the Russian futurists who so passionately defended mass production were highly influenced by communism? This debate, therefore, has less to do with new technology that allowed for mass production and more to do with the social and economic climate of the early 20th century. The lower and middle classes were getting restless while the upper classes were appalled that the 'fine' art that they were used to being surrounded by was falling to the wayside.

In the end, I think some more basic binaries are going to have to be broken down in society before fine v. applied art can be tackled. But there's no harm in trying. Anyway, the attempts to do so are often quite spectacular.

Teapots, by Mette Marie Ørsted Eriksen - an example of that striking straddling between fine and applied arts
http://galleri18.dk/img/mette-01.jpg