Response

On the "Villification of the W.P.A. Aesthetic"....


"Terrific job Mike. You have a tiger by the tail with this one. To answer your question. There is nothing in art history that refutes your claim. And you do touch upon certain aspects of this in your article. Of course I have not read what you have read recently in order to discorse on this subject, but I do recognize in what you have written so far, that this is an excellent subject in which to clarify for once and for all (at least in our own time) two things which we are constantly
dealing with -

1. History and how it should be defined and
understood.
2. Art. And how important it is in
giving us the true picture of man's everyday
struggle with the human condition. As you suggest art
is always subject to villification even though
paradoxically it is so important to us in our
understanding and compassion for man and his history.

I am now reading Jose Ortega y Gasset's "History as a System" and it fits in hand and glove with your project about the WPA. Please note that in this Friday issue of NY Times (Fine arts) 3 articles of note which fall right into
your subject- Holland Cotter writing about Art between 1960's and 1990's, reviewing a show at Hessel Museum of Art at Bard College. The first paragraph he writes captures the art scene at that time succinctly and in one fell swoop. Next Roberta
Smith reviwing -"Masterpieces of Europeaan art From the Cleveland Museum of Art"reminds us of the overwhelming importance of Art History and why we need to constantly Keep hold of what constitutes quality and integrity in all art whatever the period be. Lastly we have a great review by Michael Kimmelman on Velasquez. He quotes one of my favorite writers-Jose Ortega y Gasset-who said about Velaasquez's work..."It isn't art; it is life perpetuated"

V. Pepi, Sat, November 11, 2006

The Vilification of the W.P.A. Aesthetic

Post-Abstract Expressionism critics and memory

Art, even more than history, is pathetically committed to a teleological progression. It is rife with “natural phenomenon” which mark points in time, or departures, that cue an expected reaction from us (Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon, or Duchamps 'ready mades'). It is not as deplorable, though, the fact that art can very rarely stand alone without cultural accompaniment. Such background support for art is certainly less hegemonic, and decidedly more utilitarian.

The problem begins and ends with three forms of bastardization in the “viewing of Art”. Hero worship, by which I mean the inflation of value and agency of an individual artist, which usually results from a failure to place the artist within a correct and comfortable cultural milieu.



The eclipse of a style, or chronological disregard of a “former” aesthetic whose role is pinned only as a precipitator of the aforementioned “natural phenomenon” is the second form. Common in the 20th century, though repeated throughout history by elite that sound the clarion call of “renaissance” or “revolt” or “rejection” in art. The Prime example of this is found in the wake of the America’s Abstract Expressionist movement. It ushered in a shift of style that led to a large scale disregard for the American Scene paintings of the preceding decade. Comprised of regionalists and social realists, 1930’s realism, exists now in this tightly sealed categorical box thanks to none other than the dismissive art critics that were the most enthusiastic proponents of the Abstract movement (Greenberg, Rosenberg). The W.P.A. stood in this crossfire, and was undeservedly dragged into the conflagration. As the perfect scapegoat, modernists charged the W.P.A. federal arts project with institutional maintenance and propagation of stolid realism through its decade long reign. Not only are their logistical fallacies in this charge, but more regrettably the framing is born out of a sort of agenda of the authors of this history.

The third agent of degradation is the monopolistic concentration of cultural leadership held in elite institutions. These various forms of “authority”: museums, university art departments, few powerful and widely-read publications, as well as high-priced auction houses and galleries, exist outside of popular access. These organs define the value of art as well as write it’s history. They serve as proponents of the established paradigm, which not only frames the present Art world, but suffocates individual exploration into the past.

Natural and social histories can be formed largely on its own, without authors. Authors of social history can only do so much to distort, hide, and make meaning were none exists. While there is no such thing as truth in history, the social historians have much less room for error in representation. Art History, though, is (like a new born baby) wholeheartedly dependent on others to write its history for it. Without historians to their own, Art history exists as a mere series of paintings and sculptures strewn across time.

These acts are then destined to be committed by art historians and other elite ministers of taste. Perhaps it is futile to try and correct such injustices when faced with their deep roots and fervent offspring. However, there always is hope, for if one thing is certain about the Art world, it is that there is no certainty at all. In a world full of so many revolts and rejects just maybe the rights to the many wrongs is just around the corner.


Picture notes:(left)Thomas Benton. Boomtown 1928 American. Oil on canvas
46 1/8 in. x 54 1/4 in. (117.16 cm x 137.8 cm), O. Louis Gugliemi (American, born Egypt, 1906-1956)Odd Fellows Hall, 1934. Oil on canvas, 24 x 30”

1051A

Vincent Pepi, "1051A", Painting Oil, 1990, 67 x 55 inches

September 23, 2006

some peculiar happenings....

The other day one of my friends (an art history major) looked at a reproduction of one of your paintings in my room and mistook it for Gorky. She swore it was a Gorky, until I told her it was, in fact a Pepi. I dont know how you will interpret that, being that, despite your admiration for Gorky, you have always crafted a unique style that perhaps a more educated eye can discern. either way it should serve to confirm, in a present day context, what you already knew about your work in relation to your peers.














503, 1950,Oil Painting
20 x 14 x 1 inches

I am not to judge whether your reatcion about this confusion with Gorky,
that is your place as the artist to decide I suppose. I thought it was a worthy discussion point. Also this tells us more about the art audience and "art world" than it does about the craft. I tell you all this not to pass judgment on the events or to try to get any certain reaction from you other than I felt as if , this instance was a clever incident in gaging a new generation's view of art and their nterpretations. Even through your own style, the inventiveness of which this painting communicates, the tendecies and norms upon which the eye of the new generation operates emerge. Exercises like this are often overlooked in the progression of viewing and interpreting art. What directs the eye in viewing art through the change of generations or shifts in cultural consciousness? Instead of confronting these questions head on, we comfortably rest on the laurels and theories (sometimes incorrect) of the progression of art. We are pre-instructed what to look for in art before we even get to the parking lot.

just some things that sprouted out from that event. Thought you would like
to hear them.

-Mike Pepi