Re: [-empyre-] Re: no identity at all

On Jul 26, 2007, at 12:44 PM, Brian Droitcour wrote:

certain formal solutions to problems of visual expression were current

gh comments:

I wasn't at Documenta.

For most people of the world art is a dream or a rumor or something done by children. Within this reality art is an oddity that is used as a form of corporate communication or by governments to express power. The individual identity of the artist hardly matters for most art and the way that it is used. Corporate America's (and by extension global corporate hegemony) art forms are the commercial or advertisement, the hollywood movie and popular music(videos). All of these forms are collaborative and most do not celebrate the individuality of the artist. With pop music and film acting the artist turns themselves into a commodity.

Therefore, I argue for and agree with an art that preserves and celebrates the individual. I am suspicious of language that reduces artists to problem solvers. That is not the case, artists are not problem solvers. I also find that the narrative of Western art history is the intellectual foil for all artists. Such shows as Documenta present that narrative.

What makes a person unique is what interests me, not how they function within any society. The struggle for any artist is against all the forces that batter them and tear them apart. These forces insist on a practical, useful place for the artist in society. The least part is to produce a commodity that can be bought and sold. The other forces pigeonhole artists as, weird, strange, defective, anti- social, lazy useless, Godless, homosexuals etc..

The narrative of the artist-genius is odd. I suspect it might be a post-humous honor conveyed on individuals who are able to make art in spite of all the forces aligned against them.

This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.