Air guitar

Dave Hickey’s casual yet carefully constructed sentences and arguments coupled with his interesting perspective of American culture made this book quite pleasurable to read. His writing style and opinions were so thought inspiring and beautifully worded, that I found myself re-reading and copying down full paragraphs out of excitement. Each essay was a glimpse into an interesting perspective on American art and culture presented in the form of intimate personal stories and memories from his past. By drawing from his personal experiences within the art community (and the U.S.) of the 50’s and 60’s and 70’s Hickey was able to discuss art criticism in an approachable and personable manner.  

Hickey questioned the very possibility of “high-art” existing in a democratic society, for the concept itself is aristocratic.

“Still, for a long time, I really didn’t know what kind of art they made, or what it did. I only knew that it wasn’t high art, which is defined by its context and its exclusivity---and is always, in some sense, about that context and that exclusivity.

I decided that, if high art is always about context and exclusivity, the art of Rockwell and Mercer, which denies both with a vengeance, must be about that denial. To put it simply: Norman Rockwell’s paintings, like Johnny Mercer’s music, has no special venue. It lives in the quotidian world with us amidst a million other things, so it must define itself as we experience it, embody itself and be remembered to survive….Moreover, since this kind of art lacks any institutional guarantee of our attention, it must be selected by us----and since it aspires to be selected by all of us, it must accept and forgive us too---and speak the language of acceptance and forgiveness. And since it can only flourish in an atmosphere of generosity and agreement, it must somehow, in some way, promote that atmosphere.” Pg.37

“Human art and language (as opposed to institutional art and language) always cite the exception, and it was Norman Rockwell’s great gift to see that life in twentieth-century America, though far from perfect, has been exceptional in the extreme. This is what he celebrates and insists upon: that “normal” life, in this country, is not normal at all---that we all exist in a general state of social and physical equanimity that is unparalleled in the history of humans. (Why else would we alert the media every time we feel a little bit blue?) Yet, we apparently spend so many days and hours in this state of attentive painlessness that we now consider it normal---when, in fact, normal for human creatures is, and always has been a condition of inarticulate, hopeless, never-ending pain, patriarchal oppression, boredom, and violence---while all our vocal anguish is necessarily grounded in an ongoing bodily equanimity, a physical certainty that we are safe enough and strong enough to be as articulately unpleasant as we wish to be.” Pg 38

Is he saying that temporary installation art arose partially due to the commoditization and commercialization of art?

He quotes Andy Warhol about the commercialization of the art world, and interestingly the art-ification of the commercial world.

“As Warhol was fond of telling us, the strange thing about the sixties was not that Western art was becoming commercialized but that Western commerce was becoming so much more artistic.” Pg. 65 

About the governments influence on the development of culture: defining the norm is its instrument of control over idiosyncrasy. Pg. 39

koichi

sleep.