‘This world of Imagination is a world of Eternity; it is the divine bosom into which we shall go after the death of the Vegetated body. The World of the Imagination is Infinite & Eternal, whereas the world of Generation, or Vegetation, is Finite & Temporal. There Exist in that Eternal World the Permanent Realities of Every Thing which we see reflected in this Vegetable Glass of Nature.’

William Blake (‘A vision of the Last Judgement’ in the complete writings of William Blake, ed. Geoffrey Keynes, 1975)

i should have some sort of statement of intent.
as an artist i intend to discuss art. my art largely but perhaps a little context  / other contributors / stuff.
art is currently – or in fact – always has been firmly, fashionably and inextricably linked to methods of maintaining  status and hierarchy. there is a hegemonic reality to the art world.
the times we are living in are looking to be extraordinarily bleak. basically the central rub of our society: that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer is becoming a grotesque parody of itself. not since the 1900’s has the divide been so ruthlessly pursued by those ‘with’.
the art world is necessarily a considerable contributor to this state of affairs.

which leads to a necessary question; why practise art?

2 thoughts on “practice

  1. Started at the beginning. I guess the problem may be the notion of “art”. Sculpture drawing and painting can and have existed outside the umbrella of “art”. The functions of visual representations have often but not always been the maintaining of status and hierarchy. We have an innate aesthetic that moves us to create something that has no useful purpose.. Those with power may appropriate the most desirable objects and by doing so they demonstrate their power.

    Even artists (e.g. Manzoni’s tinned artist shit, Duchamp’s urinal etc.) that have tried to ridicule and sabotage the system have been “assimilated” and their work rendered “safe” and become “art”.

    What can the creator do to prevent this appropriation?

  2. i think… both duchamp and manzoni were both playing – very deliberately playing – with fashions; the success or failure (in monetary terms) of a piece of art is entirely arbitrary, and always has been. professional taste makers run the artworld & sell to our great and good, in the general scheme of things they do not care what they sell. these days they have a double bubble in that there is so much cash (credit maybe) to plough into this shit everyone can invest in it – even the artist – pushing the price up further plus ‘they’ can define anything not worth vast sums of cash ‘not art’. something which is not ‘contemporary art’ is not art.

    selling a tin of shit or a urinal to a mover and shaker is funny, having whole bars of canape munching taste makers enthusing on the profundity and importance of a tin of shit or a urinal – is funny. once a tin of shit and a urinal is actually worth millions of pounds, and carted around the world to be gawped at by the bemused hoi poloi there’s plenty of reasons to feel uneasy. at least one reason being that the more that these items increase in value the richer they make their owners.

    an aspect of van goph and an aspect of duchamp have been assimilated but there is more to be found there. what depresses me really is the failure of teachers and artists to create any networks that could be alternatives. frankly most buy into it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s