My recent visit to the States of Violence exhibition at the a/political gallery-cum-project-space, South London (24 March-8 April 2023) gave me pause to consider general lessons for dissidents.
Something else occurred to me. Most people who identify as conservative, let alone dissident, in the US don't like artists. And I mean any kind of artist. To them art is either entertainment or decoration. Some might go for stuff like Charles Kincaid or the happy trees guy but other than that their brains just don't operate on the level of images, gestures and sounds in time. I hope things are better in England.
Thinking a bit further. (Bear with me.) NFTs are an interesting idea. Regular people are able to capture a part of the miracle of the relic by buying one without the intimidation of the art gallery, and they could be cheaper. You propose to Jeremy Clarkson, or some other non-crazy star, that you will make a series of real life objects (RLO) associated with his farm or show. Could be images of him and his co-reality associates, or the cow Pepper, or whatever you feel is appropriate. You could use Mid-Journey AI. He, or another amenable star, gets a piece of any sales that could also go to some charity for animals, the farm, etc. by turning the RLO into a jpeg NFT. Like Damien Hirst, you make some kind of gallery event as part of the buying process; maybe the star (Jeremy) shows up at an event where the buyers decide if they want the NFT or the RLO. You need to tie the NFT into the real world though. I think that's really of key importance.
I think your overall approach is fine for mass market appeal. Reminds me of Jeremy Clarkson's Farm I'm watching right now on Amazon Prime. But, high art, it seems to me, requires images and gestures similar to religious relics. That said, stardom conveys a kind of sacredness by association too as the star becomes a kind of relic that can convey to the purchaser the miracle of high status.
To summarize: Jerome is bullied as a kid. Discovers drawing talent attracts girls. Goes to art school where he attracts Audrey and verbally attacks a fellow student, the nordic Jonah (who it turns out is an undercover cop investigating a serial killer.) Jerome assumes the identity of the serial killer in a bid to win Audrey. (As we know, chicks dig serial killers.) After she believes Jerome is a killer she retrieves his kitsch portrait of her in the trash. He’s now a famous artist on the cover of art mags and a celebrity; his former roommate filmmaker makes a movie or documentary; his art professor (Malkovich) is interviewed and gains his own notoriety himself by association, etc. Jerome’s work, the work of another artist he kills by accident, is shown as a 1st Amendment fight.
While in jail awaiting trial his lawyer and art school director pay him a visit. Both know he’s innocent. The lawyer asks him if he wants out now. But Jerome goes along with the director’s plan for a long, drawn-out trial, further milking the publicity for himself and the school. The final scene is Jerome and Audrey kissing through the plexiglass preceded by Jerome gazing into a distorted mirror.
Theme: Certainly, the narcissism of a Warhol world. But a lot of anti-white stuff too. Jerome is Antifa. He equates the normal white Jonah with Nazis. He’s full of bitterness and resentment, driven to succeed as an act of revenge. The art world scenario falls apart as bathos would never gain entrance to the realm of emptiness and irony. More like pop culture scenario of fan mags and tabloids. Still, the interest in shaping culture through images, gestures and exploiting mass media are very good.
I don't know the film. I shall see if I can view it.
Yes, I do feel that people are increasingly divorced from art. I think that making art more "accessible" has depleted its sacred magic. Once you have the view that art is just like real life, why treat art in a way that is unique? WHy not think that art has no intrinsic capacity to present essential aspects of human life that other communications cannot and do not? Once the magic is gone, so goes the respect...
As for NFTs, yes, they are certainly participatory and allow for interaction. Much of the promotion is finance related. It is quite possible that the makers and sellers of NFTs don't see the full implications and values of NFTs. I admit I know little about them!
Thanks for being such a careful reader and responding so fully and thoughtfully, Alex!
Thank you. I think you are bringing up some very important topics here.
I don't understand the allure of NFTs myself. But they seem to sell (even after the boom went bust) and it's a great way to get work out there while skirting gatekeepers. Although new gatekeepers are appearing it's to a lesser extent, which is fine. You could be a gatekeeper now that I think about it. Why not? There may be some software package or an internet service provider like SiteGround that would offer you the option. They handle all the technical work.
Yes, absolutely a route around gatekeepers. I'm not sure I'd be a very good judge of NFT because I think you need to be in the sub-culture and aware of memes and references to be able to assess the appeal of NFTs....
Well, you'd basically just do what you're doing now only connecting the articles to an NFT portal which you or your group own. Say, the article on the Polish artist. You cut a deal with him. Many artists might be interested who are unable to do it themselves and like your site. As I understand it, an NFT is a jpeg. Someone takes a photo of the work, processes it in photoshop, and uploads to your portal, or they send to you and you upload. I don't really know how it works but it can't be that difficult. The traffic would be directed by your articles and links from other sites, including the artists website.
Something else occurred to me. Most people who identify as conservative, let alone dissident, in the US don't like artists. And I mean any kind of artist. To them art is either entertainment or decoration. Some might go for stuff like Charles Kincaid or the happy trees guy but other than that their brains just don't operate on the level of images, gestures and sounds in time. I hope things are better in England.
Thinking a bit further. (Bear with me.) NFTs are an interesting idea. Regular people are able to capture a part of the miracle of the relic by buying one without the intimidation of the art gallery, and they could be cheaper. You propose to Jeremy Clarkson, or some other non-crazy star, that you will make a series of real life objects (RLO) associated with his farm or show. Could be images of him and his co-reality associates, or the cow Pepper, or whatever you feel is appropriate. You could use Mid-Journey AI. He, or another amenable star, gets a piece of any sales that could also go to some charity for animals, the farm, etc. by turning the RLO into a jpeg NFT. Like Damien Hirst, you make some kind of gallery event as part of the buying process; maybe the star (Jeremy) shows up at an event where the buyers decide if they want the NFT or the RLO. You need to tie the NFT into the real world though. I think that's really of key importance.
I think your overall approach is fine for mass market appeal. Reminds me of Jeremy Clarkson's Farm I'm watching right now on Amazon Prime. But, high art, it seems to me, requires images and gestures similar to religious relics. That said, stardom conveys a kind of sacredness by association too as the star becomes a kind of relic that can convey to the purchaser the miracle of high status.
For a more cynical approach see the movie, Art School Confidential, staring Max Minghella, Sophia Myles and. John Malkovich: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0364955/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0
To summarize: Jerome is bullied as a kid. Discovers drawing talent attracts girls. Goes to art school where he attracts Audrey and verbally attacks a fellow student, the nordic Jonah (who it turns out is an undercover cop investigating a serial killer.) Jerome assumes the identity of the serial killer in a bid to win Audrey. (As we know, chicks dig serial killers.) After she believes Jerome is a killer she retrieves his kitsch portrait of her in the trash. He’s now a famous artist on the cover of art mags and a celebrity; his former roommate filmmaker makes a movie or documentary; his art professor (Malkovich) is interviewed and gains his own notoriety himself by association, etc. Jerome’s work, the work of another artist he kills by accident, is shown as a 1st Amendment fight.
While in jail awaiting trial his lawyer and art school director pay him a visit. Both know he’s innocent. The lawyer asks him if he wants out now. But Jerome goes along with the director’s plan for a long, drawn-out trial, further milking the publicity for himself and the school. The final scene is Jerome and Audrey kissing through the plexiglass preceded by Jerome gazing into a distorted mirror.
Theme: Certainly, the narcissism of a Warhol world. But a lot of anti-white stuff too. Jerome is Antifa. He equates the normal white Jonah with Nazis. He’s full of bitterness and resentment, driven to succeed as an act of revenge. The art world scenario falls apart as bathos would never gain entrance to the realm of emptiness and irony. More like pop culture scenario of fan mags and tabloids. Still, the interest in shaping culture through images, gestures and exploiting mass media are very good.
I don't know the film. I shall see if I can view it.
Yes, I do feel that people are increasingly divorced from art. I think that making art more "accessible" has depleted its sacred magic. Once you have the view that art is just like real life, why treat art in a way that is unique? WHy not think that art has no intrinsic capacity to present essential aspects of human life that other communications cannot and do not? Once the magic is gone, so goes the respect...
As for NFTs, yes, they are certainly participatory and allow for interaction. Much of the promotion is finance related. It is quite possible that the makers and sellers of NFTs don't see the full implications and values of NFTs. I admit I know little about them!
Thanks for being such a careful reader and responding so fully and thoughtfully, Alex!
Thank you. I think you are bringing up some very important topics here.
I don't understand the allure of NFTs myself. But they seem to sell (even after the boom went bust) and it's a great way to get work out there while skirting gatekeepers. Although new gatekeepers are appearing it's to a lesser extent, which is fine. You could be a gatekeeper now that I think about it. Why not? There may be some software package or an internet service provider like SiteGround that would offer you the option. They handle all the technical work.
Yes, absolutely a route around gatekeepers. I'm not sure I'd be a very good judge of NFT because I think you need to be in the sub-culture and aware of memes and references to be able to assess the appeal of NFTs....
Well, you'd basically just do what you're doing now only connecting the articles to an NFT portal which you or your group own. Say, the article on the Polish artist. You cut a deal with him. Many artists might be interested who are unable to do it themselves and like your site. As I understand it, an NFT is a jpeg. Someone takes a photo of the work, processes it in photoshop, and uploads to your portal, or they send to you and you upload. I don't really know how it works but it can't be that difficult. The traffic would be directed by your articles and links from other sites, including the artists website.