The Public Private Agenda

Is art a "whaf ? Or is it more of a "who" and a "how"? Or more "for whom" and "why"? Or is t culturally defined by an "artworld," as George Dickie and Arthur Danto claim in the institutional theory of art, where the knowledgeable people in the world of galleries and museums teil us what art is? Or is there a personal side to art that evades this artworld art; a personal art that rings true for the individual and is so direct, exciting and interesting, that the public persona of art doesn't matter - at least for the moment? Can we distinguish between artworld art and personal art? Artworld art surveys the whole scène or a particular work within it from a critical or art historical perspective or retrospectivo. It's the world of resumes, exhibitons, competitions, honors, awards, and sales. It can't be dismissed or taken lightly, though it may get confusing in its endless re-definition of itself and its accent on fashion, on endless "isms" like formalism, feminism, antiformalism, modernism, postmodernism and anti-aestheticism. I g n o r i n g theory, personal art sees for itself , sparked essentially by an immediate response to the visual world. Monet, for ampie, said "I have only looked at what the universe has shown me in order to bear witness to it through my paintbrush." And Goya, in works such as The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters" from his Los Caprichos, focuses his personal view on the social world. Both artworld art and personal art are obviously complex models. The former s more social and political and works out of consensus; it presents the big picture, the "party line." The latter is private, intímate, passionate, wild; it presents the big screen of the imagination. Out of the solitude of the studio into the limelight of the artworld, art is the most private and public of acts. Both artworld art and personal art depend on tradition. The artsworid's tradition consists of libraries, archives, museums. Personal art tradition relies on memory and experience. Frederick Turner writes (Harpers, April 1 995): "If tradition can be understood as the sum of those human institutions that have lasted a long time, and if longevity is not consistent with oppression, then the older a tradition, the less likely it is to be oppressive, and the more likely it is to have enjoyed the respect of the broad mass of its participants. Tradition is the realm of true freedpm." If tradition and freedom bridge the privatepublic distinction, so does time. If art holds up under "the test of time," it is "verified" much like scientific discoveries are verified through consistency over time. Further, in the time-line of personal art, there are power-mentors from the past, a series of favorite artists comprising a "family tree," a tree that stands (to switch metaphors) by a rivulet out of the mainstream. Though the public and private often collide and get out of balance, we must try to restore it if art is to survive, if our cultural life is to survive. When you ask, then, "What is art?" and whether it's a valid category, it all depends on who answers and how this balance is considered. As a painter and arts writer (one who often straddles the public and private arenas of art ), I see the arts flourishing and I feel that the potential for art has barely been scratched. I recall that when Hokusai was ninety years oíd, he said he was just beginning to get the hang of drawing. Art has this sense of being tantalizing, inexhaustable, and unlimited forthose hooked on it and, for those not, unfortunately, it may be empty and worthless. Art has been denigrated in the public arena at least since the Greeks, (despite the art heights they reached). The end of art has been periodically predicted: It was predicted by Hegel, the great philosopher of history and culture, back in the eariy 1 9th century. And now, if you look at the fact that the Metropolitan Museum in New York is the most popular tourist attraction in that city, at the number of art books and magazines published, along with sections on the arts and art news in newspapers (even this arts issue of AGENDA), at the number of art galleries and shops, and art fairs, it looks like art is still going strong and getting stronger. Still, thls may be illusory if the private and public dimensions are not considered. Will future art be more communal like that of the Medieval period, as culture critic Jacques Barzun has suggested? Or is the cameraderie of the Impressionists or the Abstract Expressionists in New York more of a viable model? Will there be more collaboration and conversation among artists and between the public and private? I hope so; I believe art begins in private, in the free play of an artist's imagination but it thrives when the public and private sectors of art cooperate, though they may never coalesce. ■ "Art has this sense of being tantalizing, inexhaustable, and unlimitedfor those hooked on it and, for those not, unfortunately, it may be empty and worthless." WHAT IS ART?