just read an article on Deleuze and Guattari on the (in my own words) the redundancy of 'political art'. in it they explain that with mass media, there is no such thing as democracy - essentially, they are oximoronic. in that same vein, with such a strong capitalist rule of hegemony, that which comes out as 'subversive' is soon picked up the cultural agency, packaged, produced and then sold to the very people who are attracted to this form of art because they are against the hegemonic rule: thus making it the thing that they are, being sold back to them so they can identify with that thing and continue to feel like themselves; also breaking any possibility of being 'revolutionary' because they are now being fed, supported, and distributed by the exact rule they are rebelling from. to make that statement more crystal clear, the writer of the said article brings up the example of Rage Against the Machine. They were, eventually, part of the machine that they were enraged against; their fans, in the meantime, were buying their records, and financially supporting that same machine that they were evidently (through proof of their following) also enraged by.
They said that the only thing that runs our capitalist society is the essence of 'desire'. People desire items that they go out to buy to feel complete. Having been reading Ways of Seeing today, in conjunction with writings on ethnographic filmmaking, I am taken into the world of what the anti-art really is. The anti-art, according to this writer will be anthything that depicts as really as possible. Berger, going back to the notion of desire, speaks of it in the sense that advertisements use 'art' in the classical format as it is reminiscent of the bourgeious sense of desire when desiring a painting, for it's monetary, and thus status symbol, value; but also for the image portrayed, which will most likely either be some kind of commissioned scene, popular at that time, making it a very clear and recognizeable status symbol, or an image of some sexual implication, usually the image of a nude woman, daring a man of stature to own her. Today, advertisements use this same process of desire to make you want what may just make you look, feel, or seems somewhat better than everyone else - as the adverstisements usually depict somewhat in a state of 'happiness' from having/using the product advertised, making the audience envy the user and therefore desire the product too. The writer of the article also alludes to Baudrillard and the sense that he brought up which is that the world does not rotate towards an equalibrium, but rather an extreme.
Are we creature of territoriality? Is that learned or innate? Territorialism to me was always relateable to feelings of envy. And if we, as people, at some point will always want to 'own' something in the sense that an object, including art, can be objectified and owned, the idea of political art, or anything 'radical' in that instance, will forever be a commodity and neither, art, nor anti-art as it will continue to be the essence or product of some kind of hegemonic rule; a cycle that the darker side of humanity will keep us running like hamsters within.
Monday, 23 February 2009
Friday, 6 February 2009
Ok - i'm starting easy, just adding text to images. for now, i'm just hoping that a message comes across - either funny or not. This is my image, but it's not my line. I saw it on a piece at a gallery in an exhibition on inauguration day. british artist - but it wasn't his line either. is it ok if you're a second hand phrase thief? (or should i not admit that at all?)
Thursday, 5 February 2009
I took a crack at teaching myself a bit of beginners' Photoshop today. I was only able to add the letters. Not fantastic, needs a lot of work - but i did say 'beginners''.
(in response to Mr Muntazir Al Zaidi's 'goodbye kiss' to US President George Bush)