When I say "cynical" in that lazy way, I am talking about a certain *kind* of taking advantage of the way things are--a getting over that I think is specific to the information-saturated world we live in right now. This behavior is similar to John Currin's exploitation of a specific art scene, but differs in effect and motivation.
Compare John Currin's paintings of extremely large breasts to any Karl Rove Moment, from the Racism Exists And We'll Rebuild New Orleans Even If It Takes A Kerjillion Dollars Speech to the endless Terror Alert Distractions. Both are extremely selfish calculations of what people will want to see (or what will get people riled up), and both Rove and Currin are interested in power and influence. But Kat, you are right. Beyond that, there are very few similarities.
First of all, Currin is the first to admit what he is doing--he's not lying to anyone. Currin says that he exploited a hole in the gallery scene. Currin admits that he is using art history so that he can make interesting paintings, even as he learns how to paint. I don't think Currin really understands how weirdly sexist his paintings are, but he seems to be very aware of their potential to caress you and slap you at the same time.
More important, Currin is involved in a reciprocal game *with* the art world, in which everyone wins. He gets to learn how to paint. But he also puts a fresh set of eyes on a specific history of painting. Ideally he learns something about men and women. But even if he doesn't, we all get to learn something. He gets rich. And we get a rich, freaky experience that at least gives us a lot to talk about. (Gypsy_kat, I know that you don't like Currin's work, but will you admit that it's at least worth your time to tear it apart?)
Even if you don't like the work, nobody winds up being the loser. He gives and takes.
Rove, while he is equally terrier-like in his ability to find and bury his nose in an opportunity, is not playing *with* us at all. Rove's Magic Spin Machine is, of course, an instrument of lies. We are winning in Iraq (no photographs of caskets allowed). We should be in Iraq in the first place (it was never about WMD's, this is about the war on terror...). We are compassionate conservatives (but we will make sure every single marginally poor person gets into a ton of predatory credit card debt and can't file bankrupcy).
No actual needs are filled. Worse, thousands of people are hurt. Of course, art can't take away your food stamps or kill your son, and this does make the comparison somewhat unfair, but bear with me. This Magic Spin Wheel, or The Spiraling Shape That Makes You Go Insane (thanks, They Might Be Giants) wouldn't work if Rove was the only one doing it. The fact that the Bush adminsitration is *capable* of convincing *anyone* that, say, they care about the poor people in New Orleans, is part of a larger system--a Bullshit Age. It's everywhere. Credit card companies and banks are adding all kinds of crazy fees because they can. Every month I seem to be disputing some bill that is wrong. My college students don't believe (or believe in) anything. And I am not just saying that.
And I absolutely see an art market caught in the grip of the same Spiraling Shape. And while I would love to flabbily call it cynical, it's more than that. It's duplicitous. To get back to your context argument, Kat, it uses the gallery/nonprofit space/museum context to push the most conservative, academic work *as if* it were actual, cutting-edge thinking work. It does this by making curators the driving 'intellectual' force at the expense of artists' voices; by harnessing artists to money (the AIM program is a particularly perverse example); by worshipping young artists record-label style.
Sure, artists who want to have a conversation (even a cynical conversation) lose. But more important, the value of the entire enterprise is lost. Why look to an elitist visual art machine that is sucked into the same lying machine as everything else?
Compare John Currin's paintings of extremely large breasts to any Karl Rove Moment, from the Racism Exists And We'll Rebuild New Orleans Even If It Takes A Kerjillion Dollars Speech to the endless Terror Alert Distractions. Both are extremely selfish calculations of what people will want to see (or what will get people riled up), and both Rove and Currin are interested in power and influence. But Kat, you are right. Beyond that, there are very few similarities.
First of all, Currin is the first to admit what he is doing--he's not lying to anyone. Currin says that he exploited a hole in the gallery scene. Currin admits that he is using art history so that he can make interesting paintings, even as he learns how to paint. I don't think Currin really understands how weirdly sexist his paintings are, but he seems to be very aware of their potential to caress you and slap you at the same time.
More important, Currin is involved in a reciprocal game *with* the art world, in which everyone wins. He gets to learn how to paint. But he also puts a fresh set of eyes on a specific history of painting. Ideally he learns something about men and women. But even if he doesn't, we all get to learn something. He gets rich. And we get a rich, freaky experience that at least gives us a lot to talk about. (Gypsy_kat, I know that you don't like Currin's work, but will you admit that it's at least worth your time to tear it apart?)
Even if you don't like the work, nobody winds up being the loser. He gives and takes.
Rove, while he is equally terrier-like in his ability to find and bury his nose in an opportunity, is not playing *with* us at all. Rove's Magic Spin Machine is, of course, an instrument of lies. We are winning in Iraq (no photographs of caskets allowed). We should be in Iraq in the first place (it was never about WMD's, this is about the war on terror...). We are compassionate conservatives (but we will make sure every single marginally poor person gets into a ton of predatory credit card debt and can't file bankrupcy).
No actual needs are filled. Worse, thousands of people are hurt. Of course, art can't take away your food stamps or kill your son, and this does make the comparison somewhat unfair, but bear with me. This Magic Spin Wheel, or The Spiraling Shape That Makes You Go Insane (thanks, They Might Be Giants) wouldn't work if Rove was the only one doing it. The fact that the Bush adminsitration is *capable* of convincing *anyone* that, say, they care about the poor people in New Orleans, is part of a larger system--a Bullshit Age. It's everywhere. Credit card companies and banks are adding all kinds of crazy fees because they can. Every month I seem to be disputing some bill that is wrong. My college students don't believe (or believe in) anything. And I am not just saying that.
And I absolutely see an art market caught in the grip of the same Spiraling Shape. And while I would love to flabbily call it cynical, it's more than that. It's duplicitous. To get back to your context argument, Kat, it uses the gallery/nonprofit space/museum context to push the most conservative, academic work *as if* it were actual, cutting-edge thinking work. It does this by making curators the driving 'intellectual' force at the expense of artists' voices; by harnessing artists to money (the AIM program is a particularly perverse example); by worshipping young artists record-label style.
Sure, artists who want to have a conversation (even a cynical conversation) lose. But more important, the value of the entire enterprise is lost. Why look to an elitist visual art machine that is sucked into the same lying machine as everything else?
posted by fisher6000 at 8:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home