Sunday, February 10, 2008

Hirst's Gambit


I thought that I should link over my article from CulturalChicago.com about Damien Hirst to this site, in case someone might want to comment here also. My argument here is essentially that the skull functions as a business plan rather than an objet d'art (emphasis on the decorative and collectible aspect of that word), and is much more interesting as such. The maneuvering of both artist and dealer are so shady and calculated they are more important or at least equally important to the object itself, especially since it is called "For the Love of God." The title (unusually relevant considering the breadth of Hirst's titles) brings to mind not only Hirst's reliable rhetoric of taking on "big" subjects, but the prime part price plays in an artist's career, and especially his career. What he sells at, resells at, donates, buys back, have all been prime concerns of Hirst et al. recently. Not to mention that the media attention was due to its much publicized price: a theatrical $100 million dollars. So why not enjoy the skull for what it is? An expensive pawn, as I posit? The art world is full of art about it's own price as it were, Duchamp, Warhol, and plenty of artists have bought back their works to control them, why not just be up front about it? Anyone else have any thoughts about this? If you didn't click the link above click here to be redirected to the post.

Tuesday, February 5, 2008

Superbowl Super Bull

On the Superest of all Sundays I was, as many of you were too, watching the pre-game show to Superbowl XLII on the FOX network.  Stats were given, predictions made and Alicia Keyes proved that she can really sing.    

Being that the Superbowl was on FOX it must have had to include at least one piece of propaganda which came in the form of Russel Crowe narrating a clip show ostensibly on the subject of perfection, playing on the Patriots perfect season that they would then go on to screw up by losing the Superbowl.  



Now don't get me wrong, I don't care that it's a commercial and I don't care that it's Russell Crowe narrating an American commercial.  As the Art Advocate it is my sworn duty to expose visual mechanics and hypocrisy.  Am I making mountains out of molehills?  Maybe, but I am not wrong.

While Crowe concedes that each person's definition of perfection is different initially, he later states "on the planet's biggest stage we may bear witness to perfection" (we didn't).  This montage creates the visual statement that just as art is perfection so too is football.  Though it should go without saying that the perfection of Leonardo Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa," Jackson Pollock's "Blue Poles," Raphael's "School of Athens," and Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel have absolutely nothing to do with football or the Superbowl.  How do I know this?  Well for one, because football hadn't been invented yet (with the exception for Pollock).  Perfection is also not a word that I would use to describe JFK or Martin Luther King, Jr., important yes, perfect no.  Linking football with these two luminaries is absurd, especially considering that the NFL still allows the openly racist team name Redskins and JFK had to force that team to integrate in 1962.  Only the addition of Gandhi or perhaps Nelson Mandela into the sequence could have made this more absurd.

I did think that it was interesting that they showed all the Ninja Turtle artists (with the exception of Donatello) in painting when so often perfection, especially related to sports and physicality, is depicted in the human body.  For the "gladiators of the gridiron" why not show Greco-Roman sculpture?  It's much more logical and relates to sports.  But then again showing sculpture of naked men could be a little uncomfortable on one of the most heterosexual days of the year, besides those pants the players wear are tight enough.

In the end Crowe's script is right, we all should strive for perfection but this promo was perfectly incomprehensible.