Thursday, December 1, 2016

The Invisible Dragon by Dave Hickey

“Saying that the market is corrupt was like saying that the cancer patient has a hangnail”

“The arguments such artists mount against beauty come down to one simple gripe: Beauty sells. . .  Beautiful art sells. If it sells itself, it is an idolatrous commodity; if it sells something else, it is a seductive advertisement. Art is not idolatry, they argue, nor is it advertising. Idolatry and advertising however, are indeed art, and the greatest works of art are always and inevitably a bit of both.”

“As Baudelaire says, “the beautiful is always strange,” by which he means, of course, that it is always strangely familiar and vaguely surprising. “

“For more than four centuries, the idea of “making it beautiful” has been the keystone of our cultural vernacular-the lovers machine gun and the prisoners joy-the last redoubt of the disenfranchised and the single direct route, without a detour through church or state, from the image of the individual. Now that generosity, like Banquo’s host, is doomed to haunt our discourse about contemporary art—no longer required to recommend images to our attention or to insinuate them to vernacular memory, no longer welcome even to try. “

“Should we really look at art, however banal, because looking at art is somehow good for us, while ignoring any specific good that the individual work or artist might propose to us?”

“Art is either a democratic political instrument, or it is not”

The vernacular of beauty, in its democratic appeal, remains a potent instrument for change in this civilization”

“Yet the vernacular of beauty, in its democratic appeal, remains a potent instrument for change. Mapplethorpe uses it, as does Warhol, as does Ruscha, to engage individuals within and without the cultural ghetto in arguments about what is good and what is beautiful. “

“Because, in truth, if a senator didn’t think an image was dangerous, it wasn’t. “

“I am certain of one think: images can change the world

“I would suggest, but after centuries of bureaucrats employing images to validate, essentialize, and detoxify institutions, to glorify their battles, celebrate their kinds, and publicize their doctrines—we now have an institution to validate, essentialize, ad detoxify our images—to glorify art’s battles, celebrate art’s kinds, and publicize art’s doctrines—and, of course, to neutralize art’s power. “

There are issues worth advancing in images worth admiring; and the truth is never "plain," nor appearances ever "sincere." To try to make them so is to neutralize the primary, gorgeous eccentricity of imagery in Western culture since the Reformation: the fact that it cannot be trusted, that imagery is always presumed to be proposing something contestable and controversial. This is the sheer, ebullient, slithering, dangerous fun of it. No image is presumed inviolable in our dance hall of visual politics, and all images are potentially powerful.” 

“A gorgeous island of gaudy, speculative images was borne forth like blossoms on the great tsunami of doubt and spiritual confusion that swept through the late nineteenth century, cresting into the twentieth and exploding across Europe in a conflagration of wars and revolutions, scattering beauty among the bodies. By the 1920s, however, answers were once more available, assurances against doubt and confusion were at hand, and there were men in power to assure our compliance with these assurances”

Even though this book is hard to understand, I have been able to get the main ideas from it.
My biggest question is, I guess, how to we stop this pattern of dominance from “the academy”? How do we allow beauty to come back into contemporary art?


Another question, and I’ve actually been thinking about this a lot already, is, how do we make contemporary art more accessible? Or should it be made more accessible? I think it should…. I agree that the sort of elitist and highly educated contemporary art club is basically serving no one but itself. So, do we change how contemporary art works? That seems impossible? Do we make it easier for non-art degree people to understand and appreciate and feel welcome in the contemporary art world? I think that is something worth exploring…

No comments:

Post a Comment