In the chapter “Dealing,” Hickey describes his quest in literature which was similar to the work we did in my last program (American Lit). Hickey worked so hard on this project and then just gave up because “there was no support anywhere in academia for what [he] was doing” (103). He claims he had “fucked up” and I don’t think he had. He should have fought for it. Sure, he went on to have a fulfilling career in art, but it bothered me how fast he gave up this route. Anyway, that was just a personal issue I had…

Hickey states basically that all press is good press when it comes to art—he gives the example of Jeff Koon—and says that: “this investment of attention effectively endows Koon’s work with more importance than the work of those artists whose work we like, but not enough to get excited about” (111). This seems unfair to me and I immediately think back to THE PUDDLE we all hated so much from our previous text. It shouldn’t get more merit or attention because it’s really bad. Was that perhaps the sneaky intention of the artist? We don’t know. But if so, is that wrong? I think so!

Hickey’s ideas about money in relation to art are fascinating: “Art is not a commodity,” (108) “Art and money never touch,” (109) and “But you are not paying for art. You are paying for assurance, for social confirmation of your investment, and the consequent mitigation of risk” (112). Hickey basically says that taking risks will make you or break you in the art world--when refering to money. 

I never knew the background story behind Sigfried and Roy, so that was interesting to hear. I agree that their "insincerity in art" isn’t such a terrible thing. I had a hard time with the very last chapter though (maybe because I was really tired). I didn’t really understand what the “moral” of his talk with the young man was. What was the deal with that?

xox,

Lauren