Contemporary art sores

The local art scene is bustling with exhibitions. Exhibition venues constantly increase and all imaginable places are either offering space or being transformed into galleries.

This is partly because the multitude of people who claim to be creating art in Malta is ever increasing. All is real and should sound quite encouraging about this quantitative phenomenon, but what about its quality? How is this seemingly amazing burst of 'creativity' being rated, if it is?

I understand that the very few 'observers' of the local art scene must be continuously striving to catch up with commitments to review such seemingly breathless activity for their respective medium. Only on a rare occasion is an exhibition unfortunately missed by such.

Nevertheless, regular features are there for everyone, even satisfying what seems to be a contagious fixation for a rather quick, competitive exposure by so many who are anxious to enter this scene.

But are 'artists' to be considered simply as exhibitors? Should encouragement be within the priority role of the art critic or commentator? Do all art 'patrons' qualify as being art-conscious? Does certain sponsorship blindly license the cheap and the mediocre? Does the art market reflect the real, essential quality values? Do public commissions provide fairly democratic opportunities to deserving artists? Is the public seriously being art-educated? There is a certain unpleasant dose of all such situations within the local cultural scene.

For a long time now, all such local activity seems to have settled down calmly on an equal level of passive acceptance. Critical observations on the current art scene, from the media in general, often lack cross-references within the local contemporary context.

Any possible direct influential traits from others' work, even if positive, or unashamed, occasional blatant copying, strangely enough, are never referred to as such, or at least identified.

On the contrary, where standards fail and results are very disappointing, local criticism seems to take a bit of distance. And this, not only in exhibitions but also in public art as was the case with some of the recent public art projects on the island. If the public rightly makes its observations, the analysts are expected to scrutinise and make clear objective statements.

Identifying possible faults directly related to art in its various genres, such as a lack of expression or concept, irrelevance to intended objective where public monuments or art billboards are concerned, superficiality in style, haphazard execution under the guise of abstraction, failure to innovate and improper presentation, seem to be out of the question in local critical discourse.

If history shows how a number of great international movements and artists have been criticised in the past, surely the rod on the amateurish and the mediocre of the presumptuous type, must have been unspared. Unidentified failures (sometimes gross and even fundamental) in some officially public art displays will not only teach anyone nothing but may even create permanent public 'art sores'.

In art, as in other areas, cultural responsibility extends well beyond the classroom and the art teacher. Popularity is not always compatible with genuine quality values while any artist's signature is first and foremost to be taken as a declaration of his/her responsibility, rather than a blind certificate of quality assurance, or worse, a masterpiece.

Some signatures may simply impress the narrow-minded 'collector' and the unfortunately uneducated public or patron. Others should be cautious and evaluative. The truth is that finally so many artworks will have to stand on their own individual merit, in whichever place they are destined to end up in time.