On 2/3/05 7:09 AM, "Stephen Vincent" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> What bothers me most is the claustrophobic control they maintain over the
> critique of the work itself. Ironically we live in an age where one can
> exercise such control. The Christo's have paid to have Abrams to do works on
> all their projects. But whether or not a Gallery or Abrams is doing the
> book, the Christos control every word that is written about the project(s),
> as well as the reproduction rights on any of his art. (Dune Arbus is the
> same way, by the way, on both photo rights and the critical discussion that
> occurs in the Random House book on her mother's work).
> Needless to say his kind of control suffocates the independent critical
> voice - and it mimics political regimes, Stalinist, Rovist, etc. that do
> everything possible to control their "message." Sadly, authoritarian
> control becomes the message.
Is this then Fascist art?
Only half flippant. I can't think of any artist who doesn't want some
measure of control over the presentation of his/her work - think of the
arguments poets have over the covers of their books, &c. So far as that's
concerned, that seems to me legit. But control over critique and debate is
an entirely other question. To be honest, poets or other artists aren't
immune from that desire - I remember vividly as a young woman being abused
for some time by a well known poet who wanted me to change my as-yet
unpublished review of his work, and who threatened me with all sorts of dire
fates - exclusion, marginalisation for eternity &c - if I did not. I didn't
change it - maybe that explains a few things :). And there are more subtle
pressures exercised as well, too complex to go into here. Maybe the
Christos are merely more successful than most.
Best
A
Alison Croggon
Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
Editor, Masthead: http://masthead.net.au
Home page: http://alisoncroggon.com
|