BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


“A”rtist.

 
 
Strange Machine Vs The Virus with Shoes
21:44 / 23.01.03
Personally, I think that the “A”rtist is a greater threat to personal or social autonomy than any politician or “ceo”. The artist is a repressed Hitler as much as Hitler was a repressed “A”rtist.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:58 / 23.01.03
Hello, and welcome back. Do you fancy having a crack at explaining this one, or shall we skip straight on?
 
 
Goodness Gracious Meme
22:18 / 23.01.03
don't fret yourself Haus, that's Rage's insta sentence generator... spot it a mile off
 
 
Strange Machine Vs The Virus with Shoes
22:34 / 23.01.03
I’ll ave a crack, thank you Haus. The Artist is a repository for the dreams of the every day man (the gender specific definition will come). I’m not going to say that everybody is an artist, that’s bollocks. The artist represents everything a person could b. But the art world, extracts a certain amount of amenable supplicants, to present an ideology of artistic expression, which is at odds with everything a person is. The modern artist has never touched upon the struggle (yes we still struggle) of the working class. They are more concerned with meeting the requirements of the establishment arts bodies. The artist is becoming more irrelevant under the white heat of market forces, but I am sure an amalgamation of ideology will come. It has become the duty of the “A”rtist to pacify discontent in society.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:41 / 23.01.03
So...you mean....in order to be an artist, you need a bunch of people to admire your art? And without them the artist wouldn't be an artist? And the artist has to keep them happy, so they keep admiring/paying for hir art? And to do that ze has to follow thei ragenda, which is not interested in depicting hte struggle of the working classes?

And, if the artist doesn't depict the plight of the working class, then he isn't leading tjhose for whose dreams he is a repository towards a better understanding of their plight, and therefore presumably revolution?
 
 
Strange Machine Vs The Virus with Shoes
23:12 / 23.01.03
Haus! I may have a better understanding of what you said, if you had checked the spelling.
But we have to occupy the upper and lower ground, the “A”rtist is a money making franchise. Stop fuckin press.. the artist is the shit scraping subserviant that every woring person hates. An artist should never portray an image of the working class if he wants to expand their opportunities to progress. The “A"rtist is a facilitator in the erosion of human rights. What appears on the screen is more importatant than the real lives of those represented. I am open to suggestion. The system is manufactured to provide a healthy well motivated (scared) workforce.
What I would realy like to see is an evolution of the B.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
23:31 / 23.01.03
I assume you mean by the bit about spelling that the way you are spelling "A"rtist is somehow significant. I'm afraid you've lost me. do you mean the Britart "A" list, or the social class "A", or what? Or do you just not like Prince at all? What does the evolution of the "B" constitute? And would you like to PM me a new suggestion for a topic abstract that actually helps in the understanding of the thread and subsequent searches for it? Think of a brief summary of the relevant terms or concepts in the discussion as you envisage it.
 
 
Strange Machine Vs The Virus with Shoes
23:58 / 23.01.03
An evolution of the “B” is a furthermost “b” thing.
I’ve given as much abstract as I need. We are squabbling over minutia while countries starve. There is no Justice in Liberia!!! Get of your lazy ass and do something, while I go down the Kings Road for a new pair of shoes.
 
 
Mr Tricks
00:02 / 24.01.03
So does this mean that an "A"rtist is SOmeone who uses the ability to convey ideas and concepts in the production of stuff that is
  1. valued by a select body of people.
  2. Paid for by said body
  3. Not related to a wroker's struggle or revolution
  4. "corrupts" or in some way devalues the collective dreams/hopes of a society?
 
 
Strange Machine Vs The Virus with Shoes
00:04 / 24.01.03
If its ok by them , its ok by me. Every critical theorist is a dick/wanker, any body who is on the side of the management exec is a cant.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:37 / 24.01.03
You know, it's hard to tell whether innercircle has hacked this suit, or whether Panarchy is just being his usual not very bright self...

Anyone mind if I whack this over to the Conversation?
 
 
w1rebaby
00:55 / 24.01.03
Call me old-fashioned and conventional, but I'm fonder of the sort of threads where someone expounds an idea and others comment on it, rather than a game of "guess what the hell I'm on about". The latter tends to bring on the response "fuck it, I have better things to do, stop wasting my time" in me.

Games and threads where the poster appears to have no idea what they're talking about I suppose belong in Conversation, if you have to put them somewhere.
 
 
Linus Dunce
01:30 / 24.01.03
The modern artist has never touched upon the struggle (yes we still struggle) of the working class. They are more concerned with meeting the requirements of the establishment arts bodies.

Mm. See here.

Also, are we talking expressionism? So difficult to tell.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
07:37 / 24.01.03
Hmm. I'm going to put forward a move to the Conversation, on the grounds that teasing meaning out of iy would just take too long. I think their is the potential for a lot of very interesting threads on art and society, but I don;t think this is in any hurry to become one - if someone feels like starting anew, that would be great.
 
 
Strange Machine Vs The Virus with Shoes
08:31 / 24.01.03
In many ways the artist represents the corruption of dreams. If you realise that most people have artistic inclinations and that these inclinations are of pivotal importance in a persons self ideology, then the status of the professional artist robs people of their inclination to create. By turning art into a profession, signals are sent that creation has to be sanctioned by social rulers. This seeps into other areas of life so that the desire for self-creation is thwarted. A person’s initial sense of imaginative creation comes when they pick up a crayon or paintbrush; we soon learn that this desire is a profession like any other. The form is given recognition and social importance but also represents the worst kind of elitism, an artist must be recognised by “a higher body” to be recognised. Unlike other forms of privilege in areas such as business or royalty, the artistic sphere is one that everybody can relate to. Hierarchies in business can be dismissed in the sense that people need a certain amount of selfishness and ruthlessness in order to succeed, something that many people realise is not universal and which many people distain. Artist status is ascribed on the grounds of intellectual fascism, the artist is the person who can justify or create their art in terms that appeal to the ruling class. By attempting to represent the working class or the ordinary person, the artist disenfranchises the mode of creative freedom inherent in all people.
 
 
lentil
12:59 / 24.01.03
Panarchy, you seem to believe strongly that art should be of value to society. You also imply strongly that art has great power to affect its viewers' modes of thought. I would hazard that you feel these two points can come together if art is used to affect modes of thought in a *positive* way, eg not "to pacify discontent in society."

Would you agree, then, that the art which will be of most use to society will be that which relates truths in a manner which effectively re-presents apsects of society to itself, in order that a new light be thrown its faults and we, the viewers and components of society can understand ourselves better and make changes?

Creating a piece of art which does this is a great achievment, one which many struggle toward their whole lives. Does it not follow that those who produce such "useful" art have a far more valid claim to rewards for their efforts than those whose work does not achieve this "re-presentation"?

Of course I am fully aware that this is not what happens in the art world. I do hope, though, that my above point at least illustrates that the *idea* of the artist as a professional is not inherently unfair, and certainly does not represent a "corruption of dreams".

Surely if a particular artist's work was *socially useful* and did not receive the public attention it merited, your anger should be directed at those who control the distribution of such media, not the artist hirself?
 
  
Add Your Reply