My sense is that the interview with Hirst is fine. He comes out OK, pragmatic and honest. However, Cheerskep, with his pedantic comment about ontology, once again asks too much of everyday talk. And anyone who's ever been interviewed by a newspaper journalist knows that the aim is to elicit something shocking or at least annoying and Hirst avoided both traps. Besides, popular interviews are always heavily edited; subtlety is usually squeezed out. We don't know what, precisely, Hirst said.
My response to Michael is a little more involved. I think he says things are indexed on the basis of essential properties as they are perceived to be essential. But that is clearly not so. Anything can be indexed according to whatever properties are assigned to it including those imagined as essential or mis-read. Thus Hirst is on safe ground when he says whatever he regards as well-made is art, even cooking. That's his prerogative and with it he indicates to the art elite that he's also up to date with the latest fashion for situationist art that engages the 'viewer' as active participant in a transitory, ephemeral art creation that undercuts the fetish commodity. What troubles me is the way art language and concepts (if they are concepts) gain legitimacy merely by being gossiped about by celebrity artists like Hirst. For instance, I've read Debord's essay on the Society of The Spectacle (1967) and I know it's the Bible for a lot of new situationist artists (and angrily critiques celebrity and other tokens of commodification) but I find Debord ridiculously dated and even paranoid in his fixation on capitalism as the great evil. The alternatives are misty stone-age economics, as far as I can figure out. Yes, Debord's very gloomy account of human debasement at the hands of capitalism may be true but when was it ever otherwise, with any economic scheme? Regarding Debord (and then new situationist art), I'm probably missing something big but I don't know what it is. Maybe Hirst is too but at least he's honest about his own bewilderment and just wants to be a regular guy, a friend to all, including artists and journalists. And he has 700 million bucks and his artworks are indeed fetishes of the Society of The Spectacle. wc ----- Original Message ---- From: Michael Brady <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sun, June 3, 2012 11:53:04 AM Subject: Re: "I think anything done super-well is art." On Jun 3, 2012, at 12:43 PM, [email protected] wrote: > "I think anything done super-well is art. And it could be a great meal, or > it could be a great meeting." > > I don't mean I disagree with his judgment about the kinds of things that > can "BE" "art". I disagree with the mind that apparently sees no difference > between merely CALLING something "art", and asserting a chimerical ontic > existence-status. I don't draw the line at onticity, but I do draw it at evaluation. I believe things are called or categorized based on essential properties (as they ar perceived), not on degree of refinement, perfection, or such, i.e., not on the accidental judgment of viewers. Moreover, it would seem that he applies his term without regard to any kind of generic or specific distinctions, AND, his standard is a tad colloquial ("done super-well"). | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Michael Brady
