Wednesday, January 31, 2007

What Money Is Doing To Art

Or How The Art World Lost It's MInd.
Big Art Big Blonde Lisa Yuskovage.
THIS ARTICLE SUCKS! This is a pretty thorough article from the New Repulic and I am still reading it, but so far, it is catching my attention. It starts out by riffing on the Vanity Fair ART issue...which I have and keep trying to read the entire thing...and keep falling asleep. Usually Vanity Fair's article's grab me even if I'm not interested in the people or subject, the writing is so good. But this is so far deadly dull. The New Republic article has captured my attention...and I am just making my way through it now. Thanks to my buddy Greg for giving me the heads-up on this one!
Twisting Girl John Currin This article by Jed Perl uses really good artists to say art is "laisse faire", which seesm to me counter-productive. I at one point wondered if Perl was being sarcastic...saying art has become marketed for the largest audience possible: that would be a good thing in my world. Aren't these cool painters? And isn't it exciting that painting the human figure has become controversial at long last AGAIN?

4 comments:

Candy Minx said...

Well, I finally made it through this article. No matter how boring I found the text in last months'Vanity Fair ART issue...this aricle just came at the art world from the conservative "high culture" boring side of things. Jed Perl, the author missteps the problems with:

The essential problem in the art world today is that in almost every area, from the buying and selling of contemporary art to the programs of our greatest museums, there is an obsession with appealing to the largest imaginable audience.


No No you snobby moron Perl, THAT is not the problem, it's exactly STILl the opposite, as it's been for a hundred years at least. Art is for only the few. NOT the "largest imaginable audience".

Perl tries to back his argument by discussing what he considers shitty art. He chose one of my favourite artists, Yaskavage, as an example so almost lost me at the bell.

I don't know Vanity Fair focused on the rich who collect and decide what are we will revere, and this article represents the mondo conservative rich who only like Mozart and old Masters.

What a bunch of cunts.

Why doesn't someone have the balls to MAKE art for the people and declare that Damien Hirst makes art from the mindset of an asshole?

Jessica said...

Candy - I have not given up. Your art, my art, all artists on the web will make a difference by tipping the scale embracing the masses of people who want art but always feel they can't afford it or, feel too uneducated to understand it and worst of all… Many people are scared of art because of the art monopoly the rich have created. They can have their niche. We can have ours.

I love blogs. I love artist's who blog. We are changing perception one post at a time. The new curators will be us as individuals talking to other individuals.

Those two paintings you posted remind me of bedtime stories of fairies. Playing with the human figure has never been so much fun as it is today online.

Cheers!

Greg S. said...

Oh well, my first comment never posted. I can understand why you did not like the article. The tone of "talking down" is obvious. Hard to have an opinion on this kind of stuff: there are just too many intertwined considerations (and interests).

Candy Minx said...

Hi Jessica, sorry to be so slow to respond to your comment, I didn't see it oops! Yes, I suspect right now...more people may be talking between each other about art...and obviously so many other topics...that things like politics, art markets and ways of makeing a living might be in the process of being tested. Ideas are easier than ever to put personal tests on due to blogging and web boards...quite interesting and I wonder how it will play out over the years?

Greg, Howdy! Um, well I think the article failed too because, I mean, look at these paintings? These are the artists Jed Perl thought were making sham lazy art...not at all. The human figure has been missing in art for twenty years and now it's "radical" and upsetting Jed Perl, that's hilarious. This was a great article in the way that it revealed the thoughts of a certain segment of art buyers. They are not happy. But it is exciting. See, who know painting the human form would be repulsive to a "square"? ...just like Manet's Olympia no?