What Hickey identifies in his writing, which is the dilemma of the famous artist and the issues of ‘selling out’ and fan relations, I think is a little odd to think of in terms of being a visual artist. For performing artists and those in the entertainment industry, this particular section of Hickey’s book was relevant, I think. But another idea that Hickey introduces that I do agree with is the notion that all of the big, important events/exhibitions/displays/etc. in any artistic culture boil down to the informal relations that preceded their advent. I thought it was so pertinent that he mentioned the mentality of the young artists he encountered, all of whom seemed to have the belief the artist is in a group of ‘others’ that are excluded from the rest of society. It raised a question for me as to who I make connections with and what kind of people I think are important to show my artwork. After reading Hickey’s work, it seemed to me that even showing my work in a forum that is mostly artists isn’t such a bad option – someone within that group is bound to have friends or a connection to someone of importance.
I also enjoyed the phrase, “spectator-food’, which I took to imply that once one’s work has reached a broader public domain, or, as Hickey says, “the domain of normative expression”, wherein one’s art has transcended one’s control. This idea reminds me of something that Francis Tucker has told me several times over, which is basically the same idea: Once you sell an artwork or loan it to whomever or whatever institution, it is totally out of your control. The art, at that point, becomes more autonomous and the artist does not determine its life anymore. Fortunately for the artist, Hickey suggests that the moment these kinds of things happen that the artist should move on. I agree with his idea, and I don’t think that ‘moving on’ necessarily means starting over or beginning something drastically different. I think it’s more a matter of acceptance of the way things work.
Another line of Hickey’s that struck me was “…you may be assured that what is being glorified in public splendor is just the residue, a mere simulacrum from which disinterested spectators may infer the experience of participants”. Hickey seems to suggest here that one’s efforts, despite how genuine they may be, do not elicit the idyllic publicized situation. I think the academic institution, particularly for visual artists, does a good job of preparing the young artist for this somewhat tragic result of their future efforts. Even if Hickey’s idea is a little dismal – one can’t have the cake and eat it, too – I think it is good to be disillusioned about such fantasies sooner rather than later. After all, the fantasy of being a rock star or famous painter or whatever and being understood and having a sincere relationship to one’s fans is a little much, which makes me wonder where such an idea originated, anyway.
Overall, the reading left me with a sense of isolation as an artist. Not that my work or I exist in a bubble, but on a social level I know that I am separated from people in other fields. Contrary to the ‘fading high-school friends’ that Hickey described, I do keep in contact with a few, in order to understand what kind of work they do, and to remember what it is like to talk to someone about something that isn’t art. So I do not think the state of things, in terms of the artist and their work in relation to the rest of society, is awful. It is practically where I expected it to be, and the conversation Hickey has with Waylon Jennings only serves to underscore its reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment