When it comes to successful self-promotion in writing
there aren't many candles that can be held to those
held by Allen Ginsberg (who also promoted or helped
to promote those around) and Walt Whitman.
Hal
Halvard Johnson
================
The Perfection of Mozart's Third Eye (downloadable and free) is @
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27039868/Halvard-Johnson-THE-PERFECTION-OF-MOZART-S-THIRD-EYE-Other-Sonnets
[log in to unmask]
http://sites.google.com/site/halvardjohnson/Home
http://entropyandme.blogspot.com
http://imageswithoutwords.blogspot.com
http://www.hamiltonstone.org
On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Douglas Barbour
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Absolutely, Alison, & as a fan of some so-called popular fiction, I also
> see no problem with artists making money off their writing (although it
> hurts sometimes to see the lesser outsell the better stuff: Twilight,
> anyone?).
>
> Not too often in poetry, so, yes, I taught at a university.
>
> I think youre right about Hirst, & I take Stephen's point as to the place
> of Warhol in art history & the fact that many do find his work continually
> interesting (& certainly there has been a lot of critical response to his
> work, & its meaning; I suppose there will be some about Hirst too, but will
> it be in any way a response to the works, or to the ways in which he has
> achieved wealth through his amazing performance of self-promotion?)
>
> No virtue in poverty on its own merits for sure.
>
> Doug
>
> On 17-Apr-10, at 6:33 PM, Alison Croggon wrote:
>
> Golly, this has hydra'd. I don't think that Picasso can be held up as
>> a romantically disinterested figure (as opposed, say, to Warhol),
>> since he actively used his talent to make a fortune. What you're
>> talking about is a commodification of perceived uniqueness that
>> basically drives the art market. What Hirst has demonstrated is how
>> manipulable those perceptions are, just like a stock market. I suppose
>> that's a performance of a kind, but he's never produced anything that
>> I want to spend time looking at. I think what you're all saying about
>> Warhol could be much more profitably applied to Hirst.
>>
>> Neither is reproducibility a useful metaphor for "prostitution". (I'm
>> afraid I find that metaphor offensive - for many reasons, in fact, but
>> mostly because it's a metaphor that's absolutely blind to various
>> workings of social power. Mark understood me, I think).
>>
>> I don't see any inherent virtue in poverty. It is a circumstance, that
>> is all. In my experience of it, a stressful and difficult circumstance
>> that in a capitalist society, where money is purchase, can erode the
>> soul and body. I suppose it's useful to understand that, since it also
>> makes you understand that they idea that suffering is good for you is
>> complete bollocks. And I don't believe in the "pure" artist, who
>> transcends all the mucky worldly dealings of the rest of us, and
>> polishes his halo every day. I find that attitude as repellent as the
>> strategist working on his revenue streams, since most usually it is
>> dependent on unseen and unacknowledged Others.
>>
>> Both, somehow, miss the point.
>>
>> xA
>>
>>
>> --
>> Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
>> Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
>> Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
>>
>>
> Douglas Barbour
> [log in to unmask]
>
> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
>
> Latest books:
> Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
> http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
> Wednesdays'
>
> http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html
>
> The secret
>
> which got lost neither hides
> nor reveals itself, it shows forth
>
> tokens.
>
> Charles Olson
>
|