Thursday, February 8, 2007
warhol
for me warhol is not only an icon for pop culture but also an icon for the excess of american capitalism through the unbelievable value that his work has been assigned through the auction market in recent years. conversations abound about how awesome and/or disgusting he was and that his work is nothing but rehashed memoirs of a shifting economy and/or genius. i am rather ambivalent about his work, but i really enjoy his writing. the way he talks about money so unabashedly always makes my stomach turn a bit, but then i realize that perhaps i have been taught to have an aversion to money by the rather seperatist art education that i have had up to this point. i don't crave money, but like warhol, when it is in my pocket i spend it. so in that sense maybe i do like it a little bit more than i am willing to admit. and maybe i am a big fat capitalist pig in sheeps clothing. when i think about being able to "get by" it does include certain luxury items that might not be considered neccessities. i want to eat organic food, drink belgian beer and feed my cat special food so her bladder doesn't get infected. these things require money- more money than i have access to. so i guess the idea of working pretty much any job available is for me not all about art and the struggle it entails, but also about the luxury items that i desire. my students had a raging debate in our last class about "aura" and when does art become art (they had read part of art in the age of mechanical reproduction) and a resounding majority of them ascribed to the opinion that art is not art until validated by a source outside the artist. henry darger be damned, these kids want their 15 minutes of fame. and i am slowly starting to realize that maybe that is ok. most people who enter a given profession aspire to some sort of recognition for their efforts and why should art be any different? the recognition could be fame or money or someone simply telling you that your work had an effect on them. i doubt the latter would be any less profound than the first two, but it would perhaps be more elusive given the investment status that art now has in our culture as opposed to the carefree days when people bought things becasue they "liked" them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
indeed... i think as artists one of the steriotypes we use to our advantage/disadvantage is the idea that we don;t like money. money is impure.
now this is a really anti-captialist sentiment that can be bought into, but i think that most artists DON'T actually want to buck the system. they just want their cake and to eat it too. i think realizing that money is how we value people, achievements, and things in this culture, would allow some of us (myself included at times) to stop believing they are so damn pure.
Post a Comment