Previous: josefina posch at liquid blue (21)
Next: roundup gets put out to pasture (57)
pushing the oxymoronic component of 'reality television' to new heights of oxymoronity
Post #485 • March 3, 2005, 6:47 AM • 10 Comments
Randy Kennedy for the New York Times: Reality (on TV) Reaches Art World.
"In the 1970's when I started in the art world, no self-respecting artist would have stood in line to try to get on a television show," said Jeffrey Deitch, whose gallery, Deitch Projects, is helping to create an art-reality show called "Artstar." "It never would have happened."
It still hasn't.
2.
March 3, 2005, 5:14 PM
This is perfect fodder for Artforum's "Scene and Herd." A marriage made in strike-a-pose hell. It basically had to happen, Franklin. These people can't help it.
3.
March 3, 2005, 6:27 PM
A quote from the article is interesting:
"In the 1970's when I started in the art world, no self-respecting artist would have stood in line to try to get on a television show," said Jeffrey Deitch, whose gallery, Deitch Projects, is helping to create an art-reality show called "Artstar." "It never would have happened."
I started my art career a good bit before the 70s, and it was not a case of "self-respecting" back then, it was a case of nobody cared. Back on the 50s and 60s people with creative fever came to NY to be actors. The art world of the time, with the AE artists and the Cedar Bar and The Club and the Village and all, has been thoroughly mythologised by now, but the fact is that it was really just a small "in" group of artists, collectors and museum people who had a minimal interrelationship with the "outside world". There were occasional breaks into wider publicity but it was basically a closed system.
This all started to change in the 60s and 70s when the influence of the AE story and the burgeoning academic studio art programs began to kick in. It became possible to be a media star as an artist and then in the early 60s it happened big time with Warhol and the pop artists and it hasn't stopped since. We now have a multi billion $ worldwide art market, art stardom everywhere and art programs pouring tens of thousands of wannabes into the mix every year.
For better or worse - and I don't really know which it is, or even how to go about deciding - that's why this is happening. Obviously there is much more emphasis in careerism than on the integrity of the product and more like the acting and pop music world than it was. Things are different. What it means for art remains to be seen.
4.
March 3, 2005, 6:36 PM
here is the show's website:
www.artstar.tv
who knows if the project will continue since the Voom network, which Gallery HD is caried on will be shutting its doors sometime in march.
5.
March 3, 2005, 6:39 PM
oldpro says "...more like the acting and pop music world than it was".
That's true with at least one curious exception: this now prosperous and widely accepted segment of the art world can't match the quality produced by Hollywood and the pop music machine. And by "quality"I mean nothing more than pure entertainment.
6.
March 3, 2005, 7:51 PM
The short version of comment #3:
More--lots, lots more--is considerably less in terms of what really matters.
7.
March 3, 2005, 10:06 PM
"there is much more emphasis in careerism than on the integrity of the product and more like the acting and pop music world than it was. Things are different. What it means for art remains to be seen."
Remains to be seen? I can see it pretty well already.
8.
March 3, 2005, 10:10 PM
Me too, Jack.
I was trying another way to get a reaction, but the good ole tried & true IT ALL REALLY SUCKS does a little better, doesn;t it?
9.
March 4, 2005, 1:41 AM
It is no longer useful to rely for guidance on traditionally more or less reliable entities, such as art institutions and academics. Relying on galleries and the art media, of course, is out of the question. Everything is contaminated, not to say corrupt, to a greater or lesser degree. I certainly take nobody and nothing in the art world at face value. Whatever cannot prove itself worthy to me to my satisfaction is rejected. It's my game and my rules, otherwise I wouldn't be playing. Arrogant? Some may call it that, but I'm not into art for their benefit or approval.
I think it's gotten to the point where the only thing to do is to have the lowest possible tolerance, if any, for the dubious, let alone the obviously bogus or the overt BS. Nobody is going to protect or look out for the unwary or the credulous--quite the opposite. It's nasty and dirty out there, and "playing nice" is only going to aggravate the situation.
10.
March 4, 2005, 2:53 AM
If this were to be my blog, today's topic would have been "why some art can trigger strong reaction and attract us and other art cannot," using the concept of undetectable "Knights of Faith" as Kierkegaard concluded in his extensive work.
Fortunately I don't have a blog, and I'd better stick to the topic here. I don't like the topic of reality television and have nothing to say about it.
According to NY Times, it seems another big piece is on its way to NY. The exhibit will be there till June 6. Not only the show itself but also the architecture of the museum building designed by Shigeru Ban is interesting to see. I have seen only one building by Shigeru Ban who makes buildings with papers.
1.
p3rrf/headNi
March 3, 2005, 4:02 PM
"It will be just a bunch of desperate artists doing their best" to flatter "art world honchos as they watch their dignity being stabbed out like a stale cigarette."
Two benefits:
- We've talked about the decline in mid-level collecting. This sort of weird media exposure for contemporary art could have all sorts of ripple effects
- My favorite moments in the Doors movie was the rehersal scene, where they go from nothing to 'light my fire.' (?) Contrary to the popular expression, watching sausage, or anything else, made is pretty interesting. Might be true of art, too.