Austinist: The Accidental Gentrifist - The Remora Culture: Sub-Urban Planning for the Homeless Organic

Edie

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 23:39:58 -0600

The sentence about Kurt Cobain is genius. I can't believe no one mentioned it. Stop thinking about Warhol for a minute and go back and read it. It will make you laugh. Good for the stomach muscles.

Benj

Sun, 10 Feb 2008 01:05:53 -0600

Warhol's got more guts than you've got shit and skin. LoudMouth, I find your work dull. And frankly, I think your taste in salsa leaves a lot to be desired.

LoudMouth

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:03:12 -0600

I just don't like Warhol. I don't think he contributed much to Art History besides elevating serigraphy to easy-make-art. I find his work dull and feel encouraged when other people hate it just as I feel excited when other people vote the same as me and we elect someone I like or the Horns win. I don't really see why you have it in your mind that I must conform to your standards and tastes.

truecraig

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:51:04 -0600

I see Warhol as a lightning rod for general/practical creativity, and a patron of contradictions. I DO see him as an artist. But not everything an artist makes is art. Some is experimentation. Some is accident. Some is indefinable, even to the artist. Sometimes shit means something, and sometimes it's just a turd that needs to be flushed. Why must it always be one or the other? (hero worship, again) I can see your take on artists vs non-artists, but gallery owners don't usually care as much about keeping new forms of art OUT of the definition as much as they care about keeping the newest forms IN their gallery. They like new trends. They like to lead them. It's also arguable that everything which ever existed (or will exist) is actually art, and that the only real question concerns quality.

Benj

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:34:12 -0600

Oh my god. I don't even like Warhol, LM. I just think you're depriving yourself by writing off post-modernism. At least assume there's something there to be seen. It least entertain an argument contrary to the one you woke up with.

Benj

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:28:33 -0600

Craig, I never meant to suggest Warhol 'lost' through the co-opt. But I do think you bring up a good point: The changeable definition of what is art is at least partially the result of a push-pull between those who want to limit art, and those who want to expand it. (And why conversations that aim to define something indefinable always involve extremes, be it Duchamp or Elvis or the Holocaust.) The problem, as I see it, is that most of the people working to expand the definition of art are in fact artists, while most of the people trying to encapsulate it are not. Finally, as a post-note, I think Warhol's contribution is akin to a modern-er Walter Benjamin—I don't think he worked to produce icons, so much as icons were his medium for producing replication itself. That is the change we're talking about here. It's an expansion of a term, and it's funny that the man's work appears 150 museums, yet people, 30 years later, are still trying to build a box around art, in order to leave people like Warhol and Duchamp on the outside, when they are in reality the saints and martyrs of progressive art, which is all art.

LoudMouth

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:26:58 -0600

I've seen rooms full of Monets and that did nothing for me, Benji. Don't assume that just because you like red salsa I'm going to stop liking green.

LoudMouth

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:23:21 -0600

The point is, they'll interview an artist who says, "I don't care if I make money off this, it's just what I do and I love doing it!" then they'll show a beautiful painting, then the Art In America critic who says, "This person's work is meaningless and they are not schooled nor are they famous so it's not ART." but who really matters in that situation? This shit is way to personal to be arguing over.

LoudMouth

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:19:26 -0600

One of those truly boring TV channels, Ovation I think, has a show called "What Is Art?" or something just as stupid, that will make your blood boil if you watch it long enough. If nothing else, it will show you that: 1. Art critics live with their heads firmly planted up their asses and have no idea what is happening in art worlds today. 2. Everyone has got an opinion. 3. One person's opinions can change not only from artist to artist but across the same artist's work. You can watch some guy from the New York Times defend some guy's assemblage of matchsticks as true art and then cut down Shepard Fairey because he wants to promote himself more than his art (which may be true, I don't know the guy). It's just all ridiculous.

Benj

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:13:43 -0600

Loud Mouth, you are so aptly named. But you haven't seen what I've seen. Yes, I saw the Warhol at AMOA. (The 1970's NY modern stuff was one of their better shows.) But I've also been lucky enough to see his pieces at MOMA, SFMOMA, The Whitney, The Met, The Guggenheim, The National Gallery, Tate Modern in London, and one of the best collections, Chicago Contemporary. I'm sure I'm leaving some out, but you get the point. I'm telling you, you don't know what you're talking about. The more you see, the more you'll see.

truecraig

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:12:12 -0600

Just to beat the Warhol horse a bit more: No, I don't think Warhol's individual pieces are "art" in the same sense as most. He was a very astute borrower/repackage-er and presenter of new angles on the things you thought you already understood completely. I feel that his processes, and certainly his work over a long period of time amounted to "art" in a larger sense (much, much larger than his individual pieces ever could) and his impact on later creative movements is an incalculable work of art in itself. And that view has nothing to do with the ridiculously subjective nature behind judging aesthetics, or my aesthetic understanding of art in general.

truecraig

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:09:42 -0600

Ben, to say that knock-offs of Warhol's work amount to co-opting is a bit confusing to me. He worked primarily in iconography (what he's most known for) and the explosion of the mundane (what he's likely most celebrated for), which is pretty much a quick definition of marketing/advertising. And he was damned good at it. So, when someone uses his work (or something blatantly similar to it) to advertise a product or promote a new whatever, who is actually co-opting who? Personally, I think Warhol wins there. From the grave, it’s like he’s continuing to co-opt more and more communication mediums. Fucking brilliant, really. But I'm open to being wrong about that. Shilli, I think it's dangerous to confuse what's accepted as art, versus what's made as art. It’s an obvious, but extremely important distinction. That said, sure, there may be pieces made under commission which are probably truly inspired, and absolutely unhindered in any way by overt pressures from the patron, or internal pressure from the artist to do as they believed their patron wanted. But there’s no way to know that, so it’s pointless to discuss. What I can say is that anything made with absolutely no funding whatsoever has an infinitely higher potential to be honestly artistic than a commissioned piece. Why? Because in my experience, money ALWAYS comes with caveats, explicit or implied, because there’s a discreet exchange of value. I can’t think of an example where this would not be the case. Which brings me to Ben’s other point about money. Yeah, in a sense, all art is compromised by the artist’s desire for food/fame/sex/raccoons/tricycles. But to take that to it’s logical/cynical conclusion and just assume that all art is done strictly for those reasons… well, that means everything "artistic" is as uninteresting as a can of Pepsi and makes all art ever made: absolute tritely whored-out shit. And we know that’s not true, simply because even if I, as an individual, don’t appreciate the aesthetics of a particular piece of art I can at least appreciate the humanity that’s expressed in it. And that humanity is never begging me for money. Unless the piece is an obvious hack-job. Another important distinction: The only time artists make money on art is when a marketer is involved (whether the artist doubles as a marketer is beside the point). Great marketers are able to make money with art, just as great collectors are able to make money with art (just as great car salesmen are able to make money with cars). Being an artist ('great' or otherwise) has nothing to do with making money on art. Most artists are dead anyway, and even their estates earn fuck-all (aside from those who were more business-savy). Labeling an artist as “successful” based on their income is using the laziest measuring stick available.

LoudMouth

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:06:46 -0600

Well gee, since we're playing that game, I guess Hitler should be regarded as the V.I.P. to the Civil Rights Movement and should be celebrated since without him nobody would have come to the realization that predjudice is wrong.

shilli

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:37:09 -0600

LoudMouth, you sound like someone saying "Copernicus was a hack - obviously the Earth moves around the sun. He didn't contribute shit to science." Warhol is important because his art changed our perception. His influence has been so pervasive that it is impossible to imagine what the world would be like without him. You underestimate him because his art is so fundamental that it seems rudimentary.

leggyblonde

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:19:33 -0600

I thought the joint was for music videos and the like. Just trying to keep a little perspective...

LoudMouth

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 11:00:47 -0600

Benji, whatever. I saw what you saw, the AMOA exhibit, but unlike you I didn't walk in there with the attitude that History has told me this man was a great painter. I walked in there, judged his works on their own merits, and saw that the work was severely lacking on its own. Combined with the fact that the man didn't even create those works makes what he did a farce at best. But that's the beauty of art. I can't say definitively that the man was a hack and you can't say definitely that he was a genius. I was just encouraged by hearing the constant rumbling of, "What's the point and who gives a shit?" when looking at Warhol's work.

shilli

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:54:55 -0600

Many of the greatest artworks in history, from the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel to Rothko's Seagram murals, were done on commission. If you don't think Warhol is "art," your aesthetic understanding will never get past Picasso (assuming you got to Picasso). If you think art in inapposite to money, then perhaps you should read Sponsorship: The Fine Art Of Corporate Sponsorship/the Corporate Sponsorship Of Fine Art by Ryan McGinness, which includes essays on the topic by several successful artists working today. Or, go see the current Takashi Murakami show at MOCA in L.A. With a few exceptions, great artists are able to make money with their art.

Benj

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:49:13 -0600

LoudMouth, whatever. I'm guessing, by your statement, that you've never been in a gallery/museum with a large number of his works, nor looked very deep into his life or the context of his work. For the record, I was the one who said his revolution resulted in art being a 'con job,' but "no talent hack?" You are out of your mind, and if pressed, I don't think you could back it up. Craig, Warhol is probably the mostco-opted artist ever. (See back page of the latest National Geographic—and that's just what shows up in my bathroom.) The control is one-sided. Galleries and dealers set the price. Many collectors, if not most, don't seem to be well-rounded experts on art, and only influence price by how much they're willing to bid, often to buy an artist's work, and not the work of an artist, if you follow me. I buy ‘a McCullough.’ I don't, necessarily, buy McCullough's "Rapeseed at High Noon." No matter what one sells, one sells one’s self. Finally, I think the amorphous understanding of art and the big dollars, and ubiquitous scandal and substance issues and ego almost guarantee compromise. Basquiat, Pollack, Van Gough. These were not joyful people, not universally, and they were, to a large extent, pinnacles of achievement. Picasso and Warhol were exceptions, and got off easy. The rest pay for their Faustian bargains. That's part of the compromise. The rest is that one's self cannot lietrally be sold. And yet the name, or style,is on the cnavas. So the artist must invent a self to sell.

LoudMouth

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:12:25 -0600

truecraig is right on.

LoudMouth

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:08:14 -0600

With every year that passes, more and more people can look at a Warhol and say, "That dude was a no-talent hack".

truecraig

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:05:05 -0600

Ben, On compromise: Perhaps all of what is commonly referred to as "postmodernist art" is a total trick. I don't know. It's hard for me to tell, really. But if it is, then I'm not convinced that it's compromised. If the point was to "trick", then there's no compromise whatsoever. It's more that the art of it isn't in the piece itself, but in it's acceptance (back to Duchamp and his urinal). I believe a "con job" by definition isn't compromised. In order for a confidence scheme to work out, the control must be totally one-sided, regardless of how things appear. So even if postmodernist art is a con, it isn't compromised by that intent (but maybe compromised by other things, making it not-really-art, but not the con part). On co-optation: Once an artistic idea or ideal is co-opted (NOT a particular piece, like how "Revolution" was used in a Nike commercial, but a total idea or ideal, like that behind the songs produced by the Beatles at the time), then it no longer has artistic integrity because it's purpose has been redirected (for market reasons, usually). Warhol's work was never co-opted because it never needed to be (notice that I call it 'work', not 'art'). In fact, I would argue that both Lichtenstein and Warhol co-opted other forms of media to create their work, and not the other way around. Their ideas and ideals were beyond the physical stuff they made, which were simply symptoms of the idea/ideal (the definition of which could be argued forever onward). For an example of obvious co-optation see: Hip-Hop. On funding: I was thinking more along the lines of commissioned work, but I see what you're saying there. I feel strongly that a modern, civilized society can and will place a priority on the perpetuation of artistic endeavors. That's where the grants come in. Agreed. Beyond that, I understand that not all artists can land grants, and they need to make a living somehow. But I have to say that if the primary source of inspiration for the creation of something, anything, is to make money, then it's completely vacant and uninteresting outside of its actual function (unless by total accident, which happens), or maybe nostalgia. Like a car, Mach-IX razor, or a baseball card. I'm probably preaching to the choir on that last point, but I'll make it anyway.

Benj

Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:38:50 -0600

I don't think 'pretentious' is the same thing as 'hard to pin down.' Because, let's face it, art is a lot of things, but it isn't Rowdy Roddy Piper. And, that's part of the reason it’s given so many of us (but not me or you) careers: It cannot be defined. (Thank you very much, Monsieur Duchamp.) However, I must take exception to "uncompromised, un-co-opted, and unfunded." Rebuttals: Uncompromised: Half the postmodernist have to know, by now, that most art is a con job. Un-co-opted: Pop Art. Exhibits A & B: Lichtenstein and Warhol. Their work was both co-opted and (probably) meant to be co-opted. Unfunded: NEA grants, the MacArthur Prize, and (to a lesser extent) the Nobel Prize ultimately translate into dollars because that is the only universal, uncontestable reward. Summary: True that money is not the greatest reward for art. But artists live in the world with regular humans, and regular humans usually understand money. Artists are also humans. So a monetary reward is at least one point, besides alcoholism, upon which artists can meet the rest of the world, and perchance be understood by them. Finally, as an artist, money lets you work. Money means ‘more art.’ Money means ‘art = career.’

LoudMouth

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:19:30 -0600

I just wondered what you thought and I didn't expect you to have the answer, but that one is nice enough.

truecraig

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:06:58 -0600

Nice. Yeah, I stepped right into with that phrase, didn't I? Lobbed that right up, real lazy-like. Might as well have thrown religion and politics in there too, eh? Just to clear things up? Everyone will likely have their own opinion on the definition, but I like to consider it simply: honest, uncompromised, un-co-opted, and unfunded. As long as there's some sort of higher concept involved, then the only remaining questions are related to technical quality and subjective interpretation. That's how I see the idea, and also the ideal of artistic expression. It's actually easier to deal in examples of what is obviously NOT an artistic idea or ideal, rather than pointing to ones which obviously are. It's something of a definition by exclusion, I suppose, based on intent. Fuck, this shit's pretentious.

LoudMouth

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:50:40 -0600

What are the ideas and ideals of artistic expression?

truecraig

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:28:44 -0600

Commoditization and blind hero worship are two of America's deepest sins against the idea/ideals of artistic expression. Hollywood is simply the blatant combining of those two sins. VM is little more than a franchise of that sinful combination. However, I don't think the whole idea is horrible. If it brings jobs to the area and makes people happy through speedy entertainment production, then so be it. But I agree that regardless of its potential to do 'good' for Austin's economy or the entertainment industry as a whole, VM should never be considered an artistic venture. It's economic. And it isn't fair to any 'real' artists out there (wherever they may be) to allow a whole industry of simple manufacturing to co-opt the term strictly for economic gain.

LoudMouth

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 15:09:25 -0600

But it's ART, Jooley Ann. Art. Art stops for no man. What are people's lives in the face of Art like Freddy Vs. Shrek?

Jooley Ann

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 14:31:09 -0600

My folks' farm is a stone's throw away from Villa Muse. So close, in fact, that they're very worried about the noise & traffic that'll be caused by the VM Amphitheater. Did you know that, in addition to family-owned pecan orchards, there are also $80k houses going up a stone's throw away from Villa Muse? Did you know that many of the folks displaced by the gentrification of East Austin live in developments on 969? Did you know that, in addition to "green living" developments like Agave, you also pass a prison, a water treatment plant (read: sewage), a junk yard, and several mobile home parks on your drive from downtown to Villa Muse? And speaking of driving -- there is ONE WAY from Villa Muse (and all the other new housing developments in that area) to downtown Austin: FM969 / MLK Blvd. So the "15-20 minute drive" will take a hell of a lot longer than that during certain times of day. I wonder.... Will the famous and moneyed artists who are supposedly going to flock to Villa Muse be so keen on buying once they realize who their neighbors are? My folks love living out there. But they're old school Austinites...not movie moguls.

LoudMouth

Mon, 04 Feb 2008 13:46:05 -0600

Thank you. I yelled at someone about Villa Moose this past weekend and it struck me, there's nothing artistic to be done there so why am I offended? It'll just be one big wannabe Hollywood circle jerk which is great because it will corral all of those people into one big doo-doo hole. They're happy, we're happy, everybody happy!