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
|