Quality issues
I'm not going to say i'm advocating this stance, but I was curious what you thought.
I was talking with this artist Paul in New York last weekend, and he was telling me about this artist he knows who is a really nice guy, but is an absolutely terrible artist. In his way at looking at things, he doesn't think he would want to spend time with this person, because it would put him in the awkward position of trying to help a hack or lying to him/blowing off the badness. But he thinks just being around someone who sucks will (1) affect his way of looking at things, softening him to mediocrity and (2) say something about his own ability to discern quality. The second thing is mostly a ny thing I would guess, so maybe not so relavant. Of course Paul is pretty aware that this makes him sound like a dick, but he's more concerned about the bigger issues here...
I think I tend to tie this in with the movie vs. book versions of High Fidelity. If I remember correctly, John Cusack's character in the both is taken to a couple's house by his girlfriend, they have a great time, and then learns they have terrible taste in everything. In the movie this is supposed to be a wakeup call and he opens his heart more, blah blah blah, but I remember the in the book, he takes a stand and declares that those things he loves (primarily music) are worth something, it's not just to look down on other people with. I mean, I remember gagging at that in the movie- of course you can have one dinner with people who suck if you're not a social retard, but how far could that friendship go? Maybe that's another issue Paul is just heading off- that if there's such a huge divide in terms of capability eventually you would drift away naturally.
This also plugs in a little bit to the idea of having a residency program and not just giving shit to friends or people you think could do something for you. The potential for political gain is perhaps as tempting as friendship.
Again, I'm not saying we need to be dicks to everyone, just curious what you think of that kind of stance.
posted by Lou @ 6:11 PM
2 Comments:
Actually, it seems like it boils down to not hanging out with someone who dresses well but is stupid. You always get things confused
Well, like I said when we were talking, maybe the main thing to take away from this is to think about what IS relavant, in general, and how to make art that is relavant. Especially now, as we're early in the process of working that things can be flexible and we don't have to worry about changing something to make it appealing...
I like the idea of making something function in someway, other than to just be looked at. I think that was the appeal of the planogram drawings, that their originally intention was to make clear how to build something. Books are also ripe for this, though most of what I've seen gets bogged down in technique.
On the other stuff- I think you're making a mistake by assuming that all artists are rankable. I think each individual artist has a general idea of whom to take seriously and whom to not. I think that's the distinction here, I'm not talking about a young artist you may mentor or help out, we're talking about someone your age or older who just cannot get it. This of course doesn't have anything to do with people outside of art, so the groupthink argument is a bit of a strawman, even if it raises a good point.
And speaking of gaying this up, you're the one who brought up tai chi.
Post a Comment
<< Home