I have been reflecting on the question for several days, and I am not quite sure if I have the good answer or if there is a good answer. I think that we have to see it has two distinct parts: the artist and the viewer. By mentioning 2 distinct parts, I wondered if they cannot become one. This is where my work takes place - precision, where I would like to see my work taking place.
I am trying to obtain a maximum of audience for my work by putting it outdoor and reaching a new public, a public that has not been alerted. Does it mean that I become beneficiary of this action? Probably I am but it also help me resolving questions around the work and the position I take. On the other hand, I think that the viewer also benefit from this kind of interventions where he doesn't have to change is routine in order to see the work. I mean by that, he doesn't have to go to the museum or any other specific places to see a piece of art.
I guess I do not know exactly if the work become popularized, or if the artist take the credit or if there's no popularization. Talking recently with Jose about Lady GAGA, I think that she is the best example of who can we popularized a product, because of course I see her as a product! Here's a great article on her and her carrier. http://nymag.com/arts/popmusic/features/65127/
After reading this article I questioned if what is she doing is for the public, for her or for both? It seems that everyone takes advantage of it, but in order to consume it who far do we need to commercialized the work. This is like saying that some artists do not have their place in museums, but they are presented in those museums. Is there a matter of connexion, of talent, of chance?
I definitely think that I need to promote my work more in order to get a bigger audience. 2 weeks ago I was on South street, the crazy FLASH MOB night, with 50 heads and I felt that the work really took place in a popular culture. I loved it, does it mean that the work becomes popularized. Probably, and its maybe what I am looking for!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think you're right to bring up that popularization could benefit both the artist and the audience. Like your examples, street art and pop (music) are two ways in which art can be popularized. For some reason, though, I think the question of popularization by way of "pandering" or simply making work that appeals to the populous is an important one. This semester, I am taking this course (where we have looked at the careers of really successful contemporary artists) and Philip Glahn's course were we are looking at avant-garde artists. And I find it to be difficult sometimes to allow myself to make work that "I simply just like" or work that I think other people might like because I feel like it is devoid of a larger, social responsibility. So, when we make work popular simply by making it enjoyable to the masses, are we cutting ourselves or our audiences too short?
Then again, I think Lady Gaga, however popular she is, to be pushing the envelope (in the right direction), so I think that maybe you can use popularization to achieve revolutionary/avant-garde goals.
A couple of things in this really interest me - first, it's good to see the artist/audience polarity dissolved. Let's face it. Once a thing is made, you're int he audience for it as much as anyone else. When Leslie brings up the implicit relationship between popularizing and pandering, I think other art world insults - like trivialization, commodification, and so on - are also apt. But when one asks about an artist's responsibility, one ask to distinguish between the responsibilities one is given as part of one's community (which may run form a knowledge of a craft to an awareness of tradition, to an ethical dimension) and those responsibilities one _assumes_ because they are appeal to other facets of our identity.
With all due respect to Lady Gaga, I want to return to an example I used in class about the recent Henry Louis Gates television series on genealogy and Pablo Helguera's project at the UPenn museum. To what extent does widely disseminating an idea or image create a market for it? Is creating a market for an idea or image what an artist does, or is that the function of some other part of the creative economy? If so, who, and how does the artist make a living at a 'respectable' remove from the market for her ideas and images?
Post a Comment