Suzi Gablik, The Reenchantment of Art

Citation: Gablik, Suzi. The Reenchantment of Art. New York: Thames and Hudson, 1991. Print.

Summary:

Gablik’s book calls for a new approach to art making, one that dismantles the modernist approaches of art, like disengagement and the minimalist absence of narrative and content, and calls for something far and beyond: an engaged, empathetic, participatory, and socially responsible approach to art. She also calls for an artistic revival of the things in our lives that currently too often dismissed because of our rational modes of perceiving the world: things like the cosmos, myth, and magic, the mysteries of the subconscious, transcendental and visionary experiences, the things that constitute soul, the idea that we are all interconnected with one another and the earth as well. She illustrates this by claiming, “the sickness of our time [nihilism] is not the absence of mythic vision, which is ever present in the unconscious, but our cultures denial that it exists, or has any significance for modern life” (56). Her book is about completely reframing our contemporary approaches to art-making, which in summary become “ ‘practices of the self’ that do not separate the self from society and withdraw it from social responsibility’ ” (quote from David Michael Levin, 65). 

Response:

 I think this book is the most refreshing inspiring and insightful book we’ve read this semester, and the one I can relate to the most. I am truly compelled by the kind of art Gablik is encouraging in this book, for many reasons, and especially how she illustrates that nihilism and disengagement are no longer valid or realistic solutions for art or for life in general. I have been thinking of many facets of this book since we have begun reading it and how/if these come into play in my own art making practices, including:

• ·         The difference between the disengaged artist and the participatory artist
• ·         The difference between art as an “end” and art as a “means to an end”
• ·         The idea that we as artists have tremendous social responsibility and we need to embrace this
• ·         We as artists are responsible for bringing to light the  things that others won’t
• ·         The idea that everything is interconnected
• ·         The idea that “ ‘being too rational is a handicap’ ” (42).
• ·         Activism in the name of art
• ·         Illustrating a problem without an idea of what a solution for it could be is futile
• ·         Art about art is “endgame” art, and needs to be something more conceptual than this
• ·         The idea that art can be celebratory (something I questioned in our first weeks of class), yet it must retain some evidence of conceptual importance.

As far as our class discussion goes, it seemed that people either totally agreed with Gablik or totally disagreed. I do obviously agree with her more than I disagree, but some interesting points were brought up in class concerning her use of language. We seemed to agree that her idea of empathy as a completely feminine characteristic was problematic, which I agree with. Anyone, male or female, is capable of empathy. We need to realize she uses this terminology, however problematic, to combat the modernist mode of art making, which she considers to be patriarchal and masculine, in exchange for what she considers to be a feminine approach, one that encompasses “empathy and relatedness to others” (63). I liked Michelle Lassaline’s idea of replacing the word “feminine” with the word “human” or “humanistic.”

It was also interesting that so many people were so turned off by her language, especially in the chapter in which she calls for the re-mythologizing of art, and the re-introduction of things like magic, spirituality, and the mysterious. Someone even referred to this part of the book being “way too granola.” We discussed the idea that we, as now rational and scientific beings, are conditioned to dismiss this mystical language…something I found very interesting. Gablik brought up the idea that we live in a time that can be considered “ ‘ the age of embarrassment about God, about the numinous…embarrassment about owning to our inner world…’” (53). I am not a religious person, but I am somewhat spiritual and hope to become more so. I really appreciated and was excited to see language like this being used in what could be considered a scholarly book, and found the idea of us being conditioned to dismiss this language extremely compelling. 

It was also interesting to see that she referenced Allan McCollum in her book, who was one of the artists I did my midterm presentation on. She brought up some stimulating points about his work that I appreciated thinking about, and which I didn’t previously think about while researching him for my presentation. Speaking about the supposition that art (specifically minimalist and modernist) has lost its ability to be narrative Gablik claims, “Life presents itself, in our current society, as an endless accumulation of meaningless spectacles,” (31).  She continues by criticizing McCollum’s work Plaster Surrogates, which are plaster casts of black frames and empty white backgrounds, by saying, “And so it is that art survives its own disappearance” (35).  I thought this to be curious, because I believe this is the exact point that McCollum cleverly sets out to make...even simulations of conventional art objects (a painting in a frame) are now considered art because this idea of what constitutes art is so numbing and broadened. I guess this is the bigger idea that she is criticizing, that art has unfortunately come to this point of art about art being nothing of conceptual importance…art coming to the point in which meaninglessness is the meaning…which is McCollum’s concept.  

The questions I am most asking myself at this point, a point in which my original intentions for wanting to make art are challenged, a point in which the carpet has been pulled from under me, are:

Gablik illustrates that art that is simply an artist’s “search for the self” (114) is no longer the answer, but for us as young aspiring artists in art school, shouldn’t this be the first thing we do in order to make art regarding issues we know we confidently care about??

For Gablik, can the element of self-expression still exist as a relevant factor to be considered or analyzed in the art making process? I believe that she would say it can, but it has to be taken beyond being simply this…social engagement and conceptual relevance are of more importance for Gablik.