On 01/01/2011 12:38 PM, Ruth Catlow wrote: > > Finally, thanks Rob for this - Art after Neoliberalism > http://robmyers.org/weblog/2008/10/art-after-neoliberalism.html > You didn't mention Hirst's "For the Love of God" (perhaps you didn't
Which was remiss of me as it was purchased by a consortium, reflecting the shares-in-art theme of that post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_the_Love_of_God#Sale > want to give him more air) but I think its an excellent example of > neo-liberalism expressing itself and finding representation through an > artwork. I was reminded of something I heard on the radio a while back There is something inhuman and anti-human about the teleology of neoliberalism, and its practitioners certainly feel they are serving God^Dhistory^Dthe market. So I think you are right to phrase the coming into existence of a diamond-encrusted platinum cast of a human skull retaining the original teeth as neoliberalism finding representation. I just don't think that its followers have thought too much about what that representation *actually* shows. > that said that Koons's and Hirst's market success could be put down to > hedge-fund managers needing somewhere to park their millions and having > an affinity with these artists' 'entrepreneurial' spirit ie Yes it's important that this art reflects the egos of those who pay for it. But as Charles Harrison pointed out, the people who pay for (and own) the art may not always be who it is *for*, they may not be its intended audience. I like Koons because he's one of the few artists who successfully deals with issues of class within his art (he's where I got the "reflects their egos" bit from). That's not something that its owners will see the same as its audience. > I think I have been struggling for years to really resolve the > philosophical arguments for and against artists becoming > "entrepreneurial". I do know that if everything becomes about money; > ways to get more money, faster, more efficiently, we will not survive > and perhaps we won't even live before we die. Human beings are grossly inefficient. The market is optimizing them out. The grinning skull of pure market value unmade flesh with only its teeth remaining confirms this. The market is Skynet. But patronage is patronage, and the distributed patronage of the market may be less awful than religious, state or party patronage in some ways. http://robmyers.org/weblog/2009/01/pure-aesthetic-2.html - Rob. _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
