Most of us have experienced, at one time or another, the embarrassment of needing to stretch out thoughts that could easily be disposed of in a few sentences. In school, perhaps, writing a paper; one’s argument needed to cover ten pages but, whether because blindingly obvious, thoroughly trivial, or moronically simple, it was clearly fated to fall far short. Some try to disguise the gap through margin tweaking, font sizes for the near-blind, or expansive line spacing. But the more artful student knows what to do: pad it out. And what better way to do so than an expansive introduction to the topic? History is so enlightening, after all, and offers the opportunity to mosey up to one’s topic at a leisurely pace. The line to walk is a narrow one. To puff up one’s subject whenever possible while avoiding any statement more than “factesque”, lest it draw attention to the unpleasant and so unnecessary question of the truth of one’s argument - that is the goal.
Like I said, we’ve all been there. So have some sympathy for the unnamed curatorial staffer of the Boston ICA when he or she sat down to write the gallery brochure text for the current exhibit, Getting Emotional. The show naturally features a broad group of work that involves in one way or another (most of the time) the emotions. But they couldn't just write, “Check it out, yo.” That won’t do. There has to be some deep reason for the show, something important to be learned . . . or at least some gestures to make it seem so. How about this:
Historically, the arts have been a site for emotional expression and experience. But since the 1960s, many visual artists have shied away from emotional expression. A profusion of 19th century genre paintings depicting overly sentimental narratives made emotional painting seem cheap, easy and common. In the 20th century, modernist artists set different goals for themselves: something new and original. Art was often self-referential, building on the ideas and formal innovations of other artists.
More recently -
But no, let's stop there. I am already feeling like it's 4 AM and I've been popping No-Doz in the face of a deadline in the morning. Let's see: a historic site for emotional expression, which since the '60's artists have shied away from due to a time bomb of 19th century genre paintings. But no, the whole twentieth century enshewed emotion in art - like Picasso, I presume - to do something new and original but also self-referential in the way that art that builds on the work of others is self-referential. If we were to continue, we'd learn that everything has changed because of postmodernism. I'm not kidding.
But the student will become the teacher. The brochure text is studded with rhetorical questions to Make You Think. At least, I believe they are rhetorical. Let's look at one (from "Emotion and Society"):
Throughout history [love that], those who would lead have known the importance of appealing to the emotions of those they wish to lead. "The emotions most directly connected to moral sensibilities, such as shame, guilt, and pride, are especially pervasive as motivators of action." [Jeff Goodwin et al., eds. Passionate Politics: Emotions and Social Movements] In our recent history, which emotions do you think have been manipulated for political reasons?
One expects next: write in complete sentences and cite appropropriate readings (20 minutes.) And me without a blue book.
For all that, some of the work on display is genuinely thoughtful, some of it very enjoyable, and some, sadly, not so much of either. There is also, I believe, a full catalog for the show, which may be quite different from the above or might not; but I wasn't inspired to look.
Comments