skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Gee-Chee said...
In the art world these huge money making galleries start selecting artists while they are in grad school. That is not the same art that has created Egyptian, Greek, Islamic, Chinese architectural structures and manuscripts. That is NBA art. You are selected to reinforce the institution, not to submit ideas that are outside of their definitions and investments. Basquiat understood that and so as was told to me by this very prominent artist 10 years ago at dinner that knew Basquiat, that "Basquiat told me that I need to quit trying to be so invested in the art itself and make money."
Gee-Chee said...
7 comments:
One can see how Western physicist's "uncertainty principle" affected society at the subliminal level through a ubiquitous maze of "art."
What "defines" art today is "uncertainty."
We are UNCERTAIN as to whether something is really art.
But because we KNOW art exists, the default mode insist on allowing EVERYONE to be their own artist.
The concept of endurance is thus thrown to the way side and we get the flash in the pan.
Real art has endurance. Real art is CERTAIN.
Flash in the pan art is UNCERTAIN but proliferate in a society governed by an "uncertainty principle."
First let me clear what I said on another thread that artists less qualified than DMG making 300g's a pop.
The wording is misleading as I ripped through the text. Artists who's skill or art making process/technical skills may be undeveloped. Their draftsmanship could be poor. Perhaps they can only draw a squiggly circle. This is no surprise. They are still conceptual geniuses.
These creators of entire sci-fi universes doen't have to know how to draw to create story boards and characters, such as Gene Roddenberry or George Lucas etc. A good example is James Brown. Couldn't play an instrument, but could bring musicians together and create powerful compositions.
Back to the conversation, someone who has reached that tier in the art world obviously has a solid foundation in art theory. They aren't talking some nonsense like depicted in movies with some corny script how the artists channels their inner blah blah blahness. That's Hollywood talk for dummy audiences.
Kojo Griffin's earlier works of stuffed-animal head humanoids, of melancholic narratives are obvious conduits of his studies in child psychology. An example of someone invested in other fields bringing the conversation to a public art space.
Some dudes on here that argue anyone can be an artist, are right in the since of a kindergarten teacher encouraging his/her class to work at their own skill level, whether out of a pass time hobby so when friends come over they can show how cultured they are.
Being an artists in terms of understanding art theory nuances of culture, social commentary, human psychology, image appropriation & so on, then the answer is no.
Example: Some cats can be an artist for therapeutic purposes to remove cataract from their pineal gland so their insight won't be so blurred. Others could paint 'still life' in their backyard to reflect on manufactured 'still births.'
Now this blog is image appropriation and possibly some original photography (not sure). I'm thinking photography because some of the icon imagery has brilliant consistency. Clean, clear photos of young-middle aged black people. Not saying they aren't around on the internet but it seems so coincidental that they would have like aesthetic.
Now those that may believe they are some sort of art purists, have to question the artistic merit of artists like Coltrane. His improv, if heard by someone unfamiliar with jazz could dismiss it as unrefined noise. Someone unfamiliar with the political landscape of the time could loose it's context, and reasoning behind Eastern theology influenced titles. Now jazz had always been mysterious to me because many times it was void of vocals. I questioned it's function. Was it form without content. After an extensive conversation with an old school cat who is deep into it, I went home & listened to Gangstarr's Code of the Streets. DJ Premier's contribution to that song towards the end, made it clear what that brother was trying to articulate to a non-jazz connoisseur. It's not only about that the artists knows what to paint or what to play, it's also about what they do not paint or what they do not play. If you subtract musical notes from white noise you form a composition. DJ'n subtracts from the record. Breaks, scratching, sampling small portions by removing almost the entire composition.
This brings about conversations on hip-hop using technology in a way that was not made to function as such ie turntables, keyboards, but also obscuring the origins of the work sampled. Then enters the conversation of it being post-modern. Challenging it as a deviance from the pure form of traditional aesthetic, degenerating it's substance.
The counter argument is that it is art is for art's sake. That this is the highest call in the art making process. Not for social realism, or ritualistic purposes, which is interesting when you have those that are critics of a modern form that strains any traditional religious/traditional ritualistic narratives from it's hull yet eulogize modern science as the perfect archetype for what they criticize art for doing...meanwhile Coltrane in their collection.
"Clean, clear photos of young-middle aged black people. Not saying they aren't around on the internet but it seems so coincidental that they would have like aesthetic." Gee Chee
Ahhhhh. My man.
What a refreshing exception to the multitudes of underappreciative art neanderthals.
"Now those that may believe they are some sort of art purists, have to question the artistic merit of artists like Coltrane. His improv, if heard by someone unfamiliar with jazz could dismiss it as unrefined noise."
Yes.
Yes!
(And I submit Lil Wayne is subject to the same phenomenon today. But that's another post)
"It's not only about that the artists knows what to paint or what to play, it's also about what they do not paint or what they do not play." Gee Chee
OK.
OK.
I see that.
"This brings about conversations on hip-hop using technology in a way that was not made to function as such ie turntables, keyboards, but also obscuring the origins of the work sampled. Then enters the conversation of it being post-modern. Challenging it as a deviance from the pure form of traditional aesthetic, degenerating it's substance." GC
Preach Bra.
'Hip Hop using technology. '
Turntables. Keyboards. And now fiber optics & HTML.
I knew from the beginning this was a Hip Hop blog.
What I was doing with images, text, sound, video and memes was an extension of what cats were doing with microphones and wax.
I noticed it had a very similar impact.
Any cat can post.
But can he move the crowd?
TD touched on "endurance".
Can your meme compete in the marketplace of ideas?
You can bust a rhyme ... but who is patting their foot and repeating it verbatim 10 years from now?
You can paint on a wall ... but are tourists standing in line to view your painting 10,000 years from now?
You can throw up a blog post?
But if muhfuggas who don't even like you, are running to their computers first thing in the morning to see it ... it's art.
"But if muhfuggas who don't even like you,..."
Yep.
Good art inspires thought.
In a society that is rapidly autonomizing, the most prolific artists are those who are going to be able take a lead role in "distributing" their art using Internet technology AND ARTICULATE why he's a real artist and the other guy, an imposter.
THE ART no longer SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
Another effect of the autonomizing society is some of the most dominate "art" is liberation agitprop. It is that appeal to the "inner blah blah" with the cover and encouragement of the culturally liberal orthodoxy that gets an incredible amount of nondiscerning eyeballs.
So we find ourself in the position of having a culture of radical autonomists WHO CAN'T DISCERN ART FROM NON-ART with the self-evident "effect" of putting the artist out of existence. Such is the nature of a radically liberalizing society. There are no artists WITHOUT LEGITIMATE art critique that seperates art from non-art.
And so the disciplined artist no longer feels compelled to be seen or heard because society has no appreciation for REAL art AND thus we get a plethora of "artists" bombarding society with non-art. It's vicious cycle.
Because most artists in America are fundamentally liberal then their "art" reflects a type of liberationist struggle. But inherent in the idea of setting yourself free is destroying your impediments.
If you "love" to create BUT NOBODY CARES then you destroy your impediment, ART.
You put forth falseness and call it art...
You put forward ugliness and call it art...
You leave your critic without rational response and call it art...
YOU HIDE YOUR DESIRE TO DESTROY USING YOUR "CREATIVE" LIBERATION and call it art...
Art can't flourish in a society mired in all-accepting indiscriminancy.
Post a Comment