Is Abjection Art?

What is this thing we call abject art?  Is it really art?  Michael Wilson describes this newcomer as slacker art.  This tendency showed up in the late 80’s and continues to show its lax affect today.  Such art takes no time or effort; some pieces even take all of five minutes to put together.  These so called “artists” are pathetic and they fall short of the idealized norm, making failure his or her medium.  So, is it actually art?

Dash Snow is a perfect example of this lazy, imperfect art.  Many could not understand the importance of his “art.”  Most did not even find it to be art.  These drunk, naked photographs of him and his friends partying were shocking to his audience.  Snow accepted sex and drug binges as fine art, while the rest of the world did not agree.  His collages were tamer than his photographs but many did not understand the purpose of his work.

Mike Kelley is another artist who is associated with abjection.  Known for his stitched doll bought objects, Kelley marked the thrift store and the yard sale as his domain.  Wilson describes his collection of mangled toys, socks, grubby blankets and tarnished pet dishes as pitiful.  His “art” looks used and abused, and Wilson notes is “utterly beyond redemption.”

Both Wilson and many viewers of such pieces cannot wrap their heads around the idea of abjection.  This bizarre idea of putting such simple things together and accepting things such as drugs and alcohol as art seems blasphemous to many.  But to people like Snow and Kelley, it is art.  It has a purpose; it serves a function.  So if these photographs and random assortment of ragged objects all have a meaning to the artist, then to them it is considered art, right?  Just because we don’t see what the artist sees doesn’t mean we should write it off.  Is abject art “normal?”  That’s up for interpretation; but it’s definitely art.

-Kristen