So I woke up this morning and learned these things from the NY Times:
1) North and South Korea had just launched artillery at each other
2) Paul Krugman thinks the economy will stay this bad, and probably get worse, most of all because Republicans will block any attempt to keep the ship from sinking further
3) Yet U.S. corporate profits in the third quarter of this year were the highest EVER
4) Bob Herbert illustrated how JFK's call to sacrifice for the sake of the country is a long-lost notion, with none of our current political leaders asking enough or inspiring people to think beyond challenges and actually hope for some dignity in this country
5) There are still 2 wars going on that we are involved in
6) I think you get the point...
And then I tried to go to the studio, but thought: what's the point, what am I doing? And I thought, who would ever engage in an arcane practice that provides no practical service to anyone, geared towards a minute audience? Why would someone do that? Who could possibly think that makes sense? So then I wondered who might convince me otherwise? Are there really people who still might try to ride a 64,000 ton dinosaur into the sunset in a race against a Ferrari? And then I realized that I used to know SEVERAL young people who were foolish enough to try such a thing....and I realized that I used to look at what those people were doing; and I used to give them a hard time about it, because I thought that if they're crazy enough to try such an audacious thing, I should try and help them do it as best they could; and I used to share beer with these people; and I enjoyed all of it; and I MISS those people...
Anyone there? Anyone want to make a case for riding a dinosaur? If so, post some images, or text, or video, or both...
In all firrilzness, I have been thinking of everyone and hope you are doing well, and I thought I'd make a blog where anyone interested could post some imagery, get some feedback, and open up for comments from anyone. We could even schedule a Skype studio visit if you're interested...
Thanks for starting this up. On our end, I think the most common question heard around the Morgon/Monroe acre is "I wonder what Chris would think about this." There is even this moment in every Crit where a grad student (or professor) will inevitably preface their comment with "If Chris where here this is what he'd say about it..." Your impact is still being felt, and not just because there still is a certain pine cone scepter hanging above the entrance to a certain building.
ReplyDeleteI think we all, especially these days, have felt the same sense of having to question our own obsolete medium. We are painting in egg tempera in a world of Renaissance oil. A movie in seventy five minutes can express our entire objective with more ease, more audience, more clarity. The question I might ask at this point is which one is more of an honest attempt to capture an idea? Which at this point do I trust more?
I think artists now (and historically) are financially powerless, but our practice still has meaning in that need to create something that doesn't need to be edited, spun, approved by the FDA, rated by the MPAA. Sometimes I also have to wonder if the people that (physically, financially) really could be doing something to have any more ability to do so than an artist.
Just a few thoughts to start off this discussion.
Anders!!! Great to hear from you. Of course I am touched to think I made any impact at all. Maybe I should mass produce some WWCS bracelets? Anyway, I hope you are doing well and it's great to get your response. Nishiki's is great, too. Of course I'm being provocative b/c good+necessary big picture questions can help keep us all straight. In particular, I think you raise two important issues here: what does it mean to capture an idea "honestly". Why would painting (low-production) be any more honest that cinema (high-production). I'm with you on the low-fi appeal of painting as a graspable idea of even how it's made, but how could you define "honest" further in this case? AND, I'm also totally with you on the fact that a lone artist doesn't have to answer to any committee or Groupthink, but I'll push back on them being powerless. Let's be honest, Julie Mehretu accepting a $5 million dollar commission from Goldman Sachs places her pretty high on the power list. Obviously, I know she is the exception to the rule, but in the broader context of who (in general) makes art, can we be called financially powerless? Indiana taxpayers are investing in you, aren't they? But all that could be an even stronger argument that artists actually OWE it to people to do what they do with conviction.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the GROUP will have some answers...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5U1-OmAICpU
ReplyDeleteI think that "honest" can be seen, felt and transmitted in a work, especially in a low-fi product and this "honest" can be a key to access insights and even a spiritual enlightenment which is an very important element for art. When the artist is honest with him/herself and with the feeling of the moment of creation, a potential to have honest "honesty" achieves high. I think being able to get to this stage requires some training.
ReplyDeleteCalligraphy or Sumi-e is a perfect medium to deal with “honest”. My Sumi-e teacher told me that his master (Sumi-e master) told him to view works (sumi-e) with open eyes and heart. If you view works in this fashion, you are more likely to be able to connect with works in a very raw emotional level. Why is this medium so suitable to transmit “honesty”? Well, because of the nature of materials; ink, brush and rice paper. The immediacy of the ink on paper does not hide anything. In another words, this medium accepts “honesty” from a brush and release “honesty” onto a paper without any intrusion.
My question is that we do have to look for “honesty” when we view the work (in this case, painting)? I think we, as painters, do, because we are sensitive to that sensation, but what about other audience?
ps: I like the clip posted by ben!