I was at a seminar recently. The academic speakers are considered the most highly regarded in their fields and I felt deeply privileged to be there, experiencing it all. It was a packed itinerary, but there was something else that caught my attention. I was, for the first time, encountering how artists must be seen by those in art academia. In the line-up of artists invited to present their work on the subject, I couldn’t help but see stereotypes galore.
There was the entertaining artist, bringing the party artist, the fun-time guy, beginning proceedings with a bit of audience participation.
Then there was the academic artist. The guy who only speaks artist-speak. He’s not interested in audience engagement, in fact he’s quite disdainful of the non-artist and is keen to alienate the uninitiated! Which in itself could be seen as quite anarchic or amusing. But from this speaker and his choice of lecture delivery, it felt utterly pretentious.
Then regrettably the fragile artist’s muse turned artist. I couldn’t engage with her presentation out of fear of her being exploited by the art system. It felt like she was acting out a persona projected upon her, having internalised it over many years - from a vulnerable young teenager to now, a grown woman.
So what I'm questioning is how we are seen by the non-artist. How we can be a useful interlude, great for entertainment, reinforcing the artist as an eccentric, a curiosity. Dare I say, objectified.
There is so much to unpack here. I have no answers, only my personal observations, which could be read as utter trite cliché.