This seminar was entitled : "Asking better questions about quality". It will come as no surprise then that the majority of discourse during this seminar was concerned with defining exactly what 'quality' meant within the purview of the creative industries and specifically Art. We began by evaluating Sir Brian McMaster's attempt at defining excellence, which states: "The best definition of excellence i have heard is that excellence in culture occurs when an experience affects and changes an individual." A statement which is uncomfortable in my mind to say the least. First of all is the preoccupation with the individual - rather than the individual as part of a group of people. In my mind excellence cannot be attributed to a work(or series of works) by one person alone, rather it is a status inherited by the work through intense scrutiny and eventual appreciation. One could say however that opinion leaders hold so much sway over what is deemed to be 'good' art that they are in indeed capable of granting an artwork a de facto state of excellence. thankfully there is no such figure in the world of art that holds so much sway as to be able influence such huge percentages of the establishment, it seems to me that if a work is of a certain level of contextual brilliance that the educated members of the populace (the members of the Art establishment) simply cannot reach a conclusion other than that the work in question is for all intents and purposes 'excellent'. In short good work always shines through. The statement "quality is relative" which was uttered a copious number of times throughout the seminar is a rationalisation of taste - nothing more. Materasso would be the first to admit that musing over the definition of the word quality can only get one so far, and that in order for your understanding to progress you must continue to question the crux of the matter, in the words of Materasso "we need better questions" - better questions about art, why we like it, what is it about a piece that allows me to derive pleasure from experiencing it? the better the questions, the better the answers - however it is often the case that the better you frame your question or the more specifically you phrase it - the harder it is to answer. it is these answers which are craved by the people responsible for making decisions regarding what work to show - exhibitors, curators, private collectors, gallery owners, government officials. knowing what work meets the criteria making it worthy of public display will allow these individuals to provide a more efficient facility for their patrons, giving them a significant competitive advantage. so in the end i guess it all comes down to simple numbers, specifically those preceded with the symbol of currency. is this how things should be run? should the prospect of financial gain hold such great sway over the art world? clearly i realise that there are certain economic necessities which must be met, and i also believe that if you are good at something then you should never sell yourself short. the problem here seems to be that there is a significant polarization of wealth, where only a select few hold the majority of the wealth.
Posts
