ARCHIVE - Creating a Conceptual Framework for Images - Week 8

ARCHIVE - lovely David

shadav09 — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 03:09:30 -0700

I really appreciate that this book was a part of our reading. Could it be simply that I have an aversion to critisim in any kind? could it be that I like to have fun in any instance? Why yes...yes it could. Although I love the idea of conceptual framework.....for images (hehe), I love even more the idea of inclusiveness. That is to say, let us look at all sides and let us look at them unbiased and with an open mind. Let's just have some fuckin fun people! Art is chaotic on a whole so don't get caught up in it. People can act like they know exactly what they're talking about but it's all in their head. Art created by person is entirely personal and if you see it as art....by god, it is art.

ARCHIVE - Sharrett

shaste05 — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:09:48 -0700

I think it is pretty safe of myself to say that I find this book to contain some of the more interesting readings of the quarter, and while I've not yet finished it I can Ididn't need to read much futher than to the essay "Glass Bottom Cadillac" to know what my post was going to be about this week. I loved "Glass Bottom Cadillac" and while I've only been a fan of Hank Williams for a very short time I loved reading this essay. For any one who always said they loved all music except country I would totally tell them to check out the Hank Williams' cd "Alone With This Guitar" which is without a doubt one of the best country music cds I've ever heard, and while it stands true to the typical country music style and lyrics there is something absolutely bueatiful about it. This essay proved to me just how inventive and creative of a writer Hickey is.

ARCHIVE - Wasteoid.

motcar14 — Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:34:20 -0800

I am sorry I get so personal in these forum discussions but I do think that it is important. On page 90 Hikey speals about art and drug culture, and discusses the different types of drugs and there stereo types and what they have done for the artist. "Heroin has produced some great jazz and some ever greater writing, amphetamine culture has cranked out zillions of good country songs, lots of hot rods, tons of high fashion and some very shiny art, thanks but no thanks to cocaine we have Rambo flicks, disco, and Freudian analysis. I would suggest, the artifacts are less products of the subculture than byproducts of its members maintain their habits, their rushes and their elite lifestyles." (90) This brought some questions to my head. So some artist make heroin look glamorous or hell any drug, then some make any drug look depressing. Like Bukowski for example every one loves him in this totally unglamorous way, but half his writing is about his depressing gambling and drinking problems. So seeing some fashion designer or Keith Richards do a line of blow off of a golden bar looks glamorous and really fun but reading about Bukowski taking a sip of a floater at a dive bar, carrying his girlfriend up the stairs who pissed herself drunk or watching Hendrix choke on his vomit is disgusting. But Hendrix had to puke on his Vom and Bukowski would suck if he didn't drink and Keith Richards I'm sure could afford to let you do lots of his drugs off of golden bars and would make you feel like a rock star and it would be really fun (for a little while). So this chapter reminded me of my friend Fletcher, on my brothers 21st birthday afterwards we were sitting around talking before the sun comes up and Fletcher is trying to convince us that if he went away for a while and did a bunch of heroin it would help him write a really good book and my brother and I were laughing our asses off at him and Fletcher gets all defensive and is now embarrassed about this comment and when we tease him about it 2 years later tries to convince us the conversation never existed. But it did and I wonder if Fletcher found some heroin hook up in some random town or even city and spent a year writing a book whether or not it would be good or not, what kind of book I don't know? Maybe if he wrote about all the crazy fucked up shit his life would experience being addicted to heroin it would be a good book- but then he might as well meet a heroin addict talk to him about it for a while try it once and then live vicariously through him and exploit it (kind of exaggerate like little tiny pieces ) But then still it would probably be boring because I'm sick of books about drug addictions. It depends on the person- I have recorded myself playing music drunk before and laughed my ass off and also have woken up the next morning and felt cheated with my guitar lying next to me and this recording or lyric I don't remember writing. I got all emotional and drunk doing my installation last quarter and took some Jameson's shots for my old homies. it was awesome but he material was already created. taking drugs to create is kind of like cheating I think. I think about this kind of often and used to a lot more- if you can't paint well or think of a good idea for a painting or whatever when you're sober than what's your deal- but then again if you're just a wasteoid who doesn't come up with any good ideas and just sits around wasted when your wasted then you suck- so i guess it's better to be a wasteoid who comes up with good ideas. but then again if you're always wasted and still producing and just happen to be always wasted kudos. yeah- i forgot about those addiction things. ah.

ARCHIVE - A contradiction or a misinterpretation?

smieri24 — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 18:38:57 -0800

Eric Smith- Art or Commodity? Whatever--

I must be confused in trying to discern high art from consumer commodity as Dave Hickey claims there is a recognizable difference. Now, many will argue that perhaps a rare car like a Lamborghini is a form of functional art, as it is a highly desired object showcasing the talents and ingenuity of its design team, nonetheless, it does not constitute high art. But if a particularly desirable model of a car has been placed into the market in limited supply, it still acts out as any other form of desired art regardless of whether I or others regard a car as art. Dave Hickey expounds on this idea that cars represent a form of art: “In the beginning was the Car, and the Car was with Art, and the Car was Art” (61). To the few in our classroom who have argued that something is not necessarily art (or good art) if it resembles too much of popular culture, this statement may seem a bit strange. But as a young kid growing up in the privileged locality of the famed Napa Valley vineyards, I saw many a gorgeous manifestations of art residing in the form of automobiles. To me, they were, and are still, when in existing in short supply, genuine art forms and not just mass-produced, commercial items. So as the automobile companies act as art dealers in phasing out old designs for new ones, and allowing consumers to advance up chains of privilege with each improved aesthetic, there really isn’t much difference from art and commodity…cars are art commodities with utility. It is all a matter of how the public ascribes value to objects that places them in such linguistic frameworks of art, or of simple commodity. However, if any one can buy a particular object, it loses its ability to accrue more value.

ARCHIVE - Air Guitar Page 102-215

gildan02 — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:41:38 -0800

I enjoyed the essay, Romancing the Looky-Loos. It started out talking about music performers and how there are people in the audiance who pay their fee, and just watch. The don't particapate in the performance in any way. In the essay they are called "looky-Loos." On paqe 148, dicussing why it is important to notice the these things it goes to say, ".....with the professionalization of the art world, and the dissolution of the underground cultures that once fed into it, the distinction between spectators and participants is dissolving well." This, in my mind brings up the question, "since intallation art requires the viewer to particapate (in most cases) not just spectate, how does an artist get the viewer to do that?"

ARCHIVE - Umm... Air Guitar!

hudrya12 — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:29:43 -0800

Dear Ev'rybody,

Air guitar: totally enjoyable. Pretty much all of Dave Hickey's essays were cute as hell, with a satisfactory level of cynicism and just a whole bunch of wit. I especially enjoyed his defensive tirade for the art world told via run-in with an episode of 60 minutes. "...I was cool with Safer's Jibes. It's a free country and all like that, and who the hell watches '60 Minutes,' anyway, unless they're stranded in a highway in the middle of America?" (200) Hilarious! Go for it, Dave! And though his sentiment is adamently pro-establishment, it breaks downs not only the stones lobbed at art's front window but also the breathless "Is not!" invariably lobbed back in defense. So, is the art world worth defending? Does the art machine work as well as its maintainers insist? To the former, of course, and to the latter, definitely not. There's ample room for positive change, but it seems that "the art community" (202) (quaint, Hickey's subtle denial of art's insular exclusivity) progressively finds comfort in sets of cliches. The role of the gallerist becomes roleplay and the artist is expected to play along. It makes me think of when James Harris came in and casually proclaimed that showing at a crafts fair absolutely ruins anyone's chances of ever landing a show in his hallowed white room. So much is dependent on appearances: the dealer asks, "Is this art totally cool enough and completely devoid of any cheesiness that might make my gallery look pedestrian?" Very little fits that criterion, because that criterion is so totally vague that it basically doesn't exist. Of course, we are talking about art, so, naturally, appearances--whether contextual or aesthetic--matter a great deal. But that doesn't change the fact that being a famous, big-time, absolutely kickin' artist is basically impossible. One's chances of "making it" in art are hilariously limited, and false steps are only forgiven if they are precluded by innumberable perfect ones. So, as a soul-crushing result, "making it" means something different for the artist scorned than it does those not yet given the chance to fail. Charming!

ARCHIVE - 8

dankam12 — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 09:04:05 -0800

In joint Alexis's response, Art is completely driven by popular culture. Art is just like a fad, when something hits it big in the art world, everything like it goes up in value, and people will do all they can to collect art that fits in the fad. When a popular artist makes some art piece, the art price is only going up dude to the fact that the piece was in a high-class museum.

Art, as much as we hate to say it is just another consumer market like clothes or music. Not in all cases, but in most. People look for the thing that is most "surreal, and abstract," and often, its what is popular at that time. I'm not saying artists create works that they think the public will want to purchase, what they will actually take the time and money to invest in and bother going to a gallery for. If they have to tweak their art to achieve that, chances are that most after failure, will look for ways to do market toward what is "preferred and/or commercial."

ARCHIVE - Air Guitar part 2

turand04 — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:51:30 -0800

"I had just fucked up, and this realization came as a bit of a downer, to be sure, although it certainly explained the feeling of nasueous dread i had been feeling at the prospect of laying my labors before my "interdisciplinary" committee." (103) This quote really hit home for me, simply because Hickey has concisely stated how I'm sure most of us are feeling about presenting in front of the clss once again.This time, with a much more complicated and difficult piece. The feeling that always goes through my head whenever we start presenting is a million different reasons why my project/speech/presentation/whatever, is going to suck horribly. I can't really change how I feel, but seeing Hickey so blatantly state it gave me a laugh at least since I'm not the only one who has this problematic habit.

ARCHIVE - Grant Info

hamtar16 — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:32:09 -0800

Grant Proposal- Taryn Hammer

ARCHIVE - wk 8

shahel25 — Tue, 27 Feb 2007 08:30:52 -0800

“I see the object. I translate that seeing into vision. I encode that vision into language, and append whatever speculations and special pleading I deem appropriate to the occasion. At this point, whatever I have writing departs. It inters the historical past"(166). This quote pretty much says everything I want to about artist statements and how to use them. If the object translates into a strong enough vision, then encoding that that into language seem almost pointless? I’m not saying that I don’t think artist statements have their place, I do. I just believe that they are slightly overused by the average college student.