In Art in America, Raphael Rubinstein writes a sequel to his 2009 essay “Provisional Painting.”
I’ve got to admit that of late I’ve been disinterested in provisionality (and it’s faux-naive cousins), finding its opposite to actually feel a little more daring. But the Rubinstein article manages to zoom in on what’s still kind of exciting in provisional painting, especially the 8th section, where he essentially lays it on the line: maybe provisional painting is making an important statement, maybe it’s just a crappy mannerism for lazy painters in an easy market, and the implication being, maybe it’s still exciting because we just don’t know–artistic practice as Russian roulette, maybe?
“it is disastrous to name ourselves .”-DeK
i agree with VC’s post of de kooning’s quote…
one of the things i often say to my grads when we’re in the midst of deep readings or intense philosophical discussion is “theory can never justify, it can only describe.” seems like that was part of what we could extrapolate from the quote above. if ideas concerning “provisional” or “casual” modes describe work, that’s great. if they are an attempt to establish or validate work, that’s another matter. i, like (i think) many of the people who have discussed art here at MWC, enjoy provisionality. but i am wary of it being named as a niche… particularly when it’s been a part of art-making for a long time.
also, what are other areas where the provisionalist or casualist aesthetic reigns? to hit well known examples, could we say that pavement or the moldy peaches were purveyors of provisional music?
and can provisionality be separated from any standard practice whatsoever? isn’t it in there at least a little bit?
Could provisionality simply serve as a reminder not to overlook, not to be afraid to take chances. I like all of the questions and comments above a lot. I’ll probably borrow from them the next time I talk about provisionality at all. The one I’m thinking of is at the moment that last question of Matt’s, as to whether provisionality may actually be a universal.
My thinking is that it’s not universal–there’s a lot of safe, decorative work out there, stuff we hardly consider in our discussions but that exists nonetheless. And that sort of risk of the incomplete, unfinished is not at any stage an issue for the makers of that sort of work.
Provisionality isn’t universal, but it’s also not uncommon. I think most of the work that enters into our discussions probably does have an element of provisionality. It’s one of those factors that “makes special” (cringe if you want, but it’s an accurate descriptor). I keep going back to those key themes–not to overlook the minor, the quiet, the unfinished or introverted and not to be risk averse, overly attached to certainty.
Discussion of the outliers seems interesting here: Where do recent Chinese painters like Wei Dong, He Sen or Chen Yifei fit into this schema? or Yigal Ozeri (to raise a spectre that has evoked strong feelings here before)? They don’t quite seem to fit either provisional-risky mode or safe-certainty mode.
Also, on provisionality in other forms: music is interesting, because there has always been a kind of provisionality allowable in certain aspects. Sure, indie rockers can make a stance of a lo-fi sound, but it’s not like sloppy & sincere were invented in the 90s. I can’t help but think of Alan Lomax recordings, sea shanties, everybody’s off-key parents singing lullabies, etc.
Film, which was sort of born with a book of rules and standard practices, has a strong provisional streak. In a way, provisionality in film couldn’t even stay avant-garde long. There’s Godard, Lars von Trier (making increasingly well-crafted movies), ubuweb type experimental film et al. But it’s also become pretty standard practice for mainstream moviemaking–Napoleon Dynamite, Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity, reality TV in general.
I can’t think of any serious writing that strikes me as meaningfully provisional. Although maybe it’s just that it’s too close to home. Blogging as provisional writing? Just not sure it’s quite the same thing.
provisional writing… “naked lunch”?
more later…
i recently wrote a lengthy essay on the provisionality of richard diebenkorn’s work. i’ll link it here for your consideration.
my initial motivation for the piece was simply to celebrate finally getting to see the ocean parks in significant number and in an appropriate setting. as i spent time in the show, however, it struck me that the provisionalists and casualists that rubinstein and butler reference were by no means the beginning. diebenkorn was operating within that framework, but doing it toward a different end. i felt i needed to anchor my appreciation of diebenkorn in a kind of lateral critique of the provisional painting dialogue currently going on. it was just luck that rubinstein’s “part two” was posted mere days before my essay went up…
chris, i’ll agree with your assessment that provisionality isn’t universal… just the difference between von trier’s “melancholia” and “dancer in the dark” are proof… even if the earlier film’s sense of tentativeness was affected.
it seems to me that werner herzog’s work is constantly, willfully tentative or almost casual in certain elements while offering considerable intentionality in the next moment… i love that about them.