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