20/20 and Redefining the Genre

The Kennedy Art Gallery is, as one popular BBC serial likes to phrase it, bigger on the inside (which goes to show you how big of a nerd I am.) As far as appearances go, the Kennedy Art Gallery has more to offer than its size and location let on. Located slightly outside the tradition boundaries of downtown Sacramento the Kennedy Art Gallery boasts an impressive collection of numerous resident artists, local artisans, and finally their annual 20/20 show.

The name of the show, 20/20, is derived from the basis of the show's criteria—20 showcased works comprising a single artist's submission—as well as the street corner on which the Kennedy Art Gallery is located, 20th Street.

Walking into the space, I felt bombarded by the vast and slightly cramped amount of works gathered together in a single space. The feeling was overwhelming. I didn't know what was art and what they were considering craft. Works were showcased along the wall and against shelves, stacked on top of one another, or pushed up against other submissions. Three or four submissions were comprised entirely of matching pottery or ceramic works (i.e. bowls, urns, plates, etc.) However, this feeling of claustrophobia added to the sentiment of the show which managed not only to highlight the unique interpretations of the 20/20 theme.

Art does not have a definition.

Art does not need a definition.

Art is what you make of it.

20/20 served to solidify ideas I had been ruminating for the past two years during my graduate career at UC Davis. I remember reading Donald Preziosi's Art of Art History, Heinrich Wolfflin, Michael Foucault, and J. Onians among many more authors, and asking myself why do these men get to dictate what art is and what art is not? I also remember recently speaking with an MFA colleague of mine who cringed at the mention of the word craft. Why has craft become such an offensive or derogatory term? Where do we draw the line between art or fine art and craft?

It has been far too long since art historians have stood still long enough to challenge preconceived notions about what the parameters of fine art are. Contemporary artists across the international community have continued to defy long since obsolete definitions, but art historians and even artists of some more tradition mediums have refrained from attempts to rectify this widening gap between art produced now and art produced previous to this period.

Why we do welcome progress but fail to encapsulate it within the broader spectrum of art history? What do we say of artists like Prince who appropriated Instagram selfies and transformed these otherwise non-art photographs into fine art? Why does it take a name like Prince to make selfies works of art?

Needless to say, more shows like 20/20 should encourage artists to step outside the boundaries of tradition and expectation. End of rant.

Comment. What do you think? Does Sacramento need a fine arts revolution? And don't forget to like the Facebook page!