The “Artist” in 2009
The “artist” in 2009 in my eyes is someone who lives inside their own narcissistic and egotistical bubble from which they can position themselves as high minded, social changers part of Richard Florida’s corporatized “creative class” who seek acknowledgment for their “genius creativity.” The “artists” in 2009 exist but are irrelevant. The artist in the traditional sense in 2009 do what they always do, which is make “art” that simply refers to their own quirky ego, selling ridiculously priced artwork to the rich so that it simply fills out another empty void on one of the many walls of their luxury homes. 2009 belongs to the invisible and nameless “mark makers” who function in the shadows to wake up a social collective consciousness of the world. Someone with such a profound calling to leave marks on the earth, holds the job in 2009 to deconstruct the beauty of the banal. In today’s world the obligation of such people might just be to attempt to wake up society in whatever way so that its people may come to see the profound beauty in the banal, from which point a person may become conscious of their own being and the life for the betterment of themselves and arguably for the rest of the collective world.
In accordance to the readings, the prevalence of new media which was evident even during the 1960’s, has lead to the blurring boundaries in everyday life, a blurring of boundaries that even “art” has witnessed has resulted in a growing trend and complication of art discourse within the arts institutions, complicating the question of “what is art?” The boom in form of new media has created many new paths for creative output. The blurred boundaries of art have become have become so blurry that it may be safe to say that everything is art. As a result, the truth can arguably be said to be blurred as well. In light of Peter Watkins’ article, the role of the “artist” today may just be to uncover and demystify the truth.
-Thomas Zukowski
No comments:
Post a Comment