A Brooklyn Culture Mafia

[sus]

This is the way that the entire project bbecomes primarily a language game—you spin a "conceptualization" of your work and people roll with it or they don't. More often, you have a small army of PR people—gallery interns, artworld journos who are friends of the artist—who do that spinning for them, create a narrative that gets traction.

Bourdieu talks about this a bit—he calls it "mutual admiration societies"—these tacit agreements people enter when scenes fold in on themselves, and everyone's friends with everyone else.

 

[sus]

a "post-critical" moment sounds like more of a problem for critics than for artists

I actually don't think so. In part, 20th C viz-art was oriented around subverting previous factorings/critical hard-lines on art, so the absence of those antagonistic structures creates a void: what's left to subvert? (This is why some commentators think alt-right production could grab a foothold as "avant"—it subverts the one sacred value of the artworld left standing.)

More generally, I think a "post-critical" moment reflects a lack of purpose—it's unclear to artists themselves why they're making these works, what're they for. This is part of why I think activist art is so ascendent—it has a clear utilitarian purpose. Its practitioners are true believers. They're driven by narrative previously (recently) lacking.

 

[version]

Like early I was trying to ground my lack of interest in Basquiat and it's just impossible, the system is "everything goes if people think it's interesting," so ultimately all you have is this subjective sensation of interestingness (or lack thereof). You can't criticize his form, or his use of color; anything that seems like a flaw could be intentional, or subversive, or "question our existing sensibility." This is the way that the entire project bbecomes primarily a language game—you spin a "conceptualization" of your work and people roll with it or they don't. More often, you have a small army of PR people—gallery interns, artworld journos who are friends of the artist—who do that spinning for them, create a narrative that gets traction. That's all it is.

You ever read that art bollocks essay Craner loves?

Art Bollocks

web.archive.org

 

[vimothy]

america in the not too distant past had this unique position as the "reserve currency" of global culture - everyone wanted a piece of it

 

[sus]

You ever read that art bollocks essay Craner loves?

Art Bollocks

web.archive.org

Yep it's good! There are a fair amount of takedowns like this and usually they disappoint, but this one has an above-average number of slams, and seems to miss the point less.

 

[luka]

Bourdieu talks about this a bit—he calls it "mutual admiration societies"—these tacit agreements people enter when scenes fold in on themselves, and everyone's friends with everyone else.

This is what we should do then we can be rich and famous. People would often refer to the blogs as a 'circle jerk' at the time, which was true. It's how you generate energy.

 

[vimothy]

but this universal appeal no longer seems to obtain, even within america itself

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

so ultimately all you have is this subjective sensation of interestingness (or lack thereof). You can't criticize his form, or his use of color; anything that seems like a flaw could be intentional, or subversive, or "question our existing sensibility." This is the way that the entire project bbecomes primarily a language game—you spin a "conceptualization" of your work and people roll with it or they don't. More often, you have a small army of PR people—gallery interns, artworld journos who are friends of the artist—who do that spinning for them, create a narrative that gets traction. That's all it is.

I mean interestingness is my ultimate criteria. tbf I'm not an art critic or promoter so subjective sensation - or instinct, I'd call it - is all that matters.

the rest of what you're describing just sounds the art hustle as it's always been

everything is always just a conceptualization that you roll with or don't

it seems to me like the hugely more fragmentary nature of media now and the way that omnipresent social media totally dissolves art/not art for an artist makes it harder to coalesce a group of artists around a conceptualization like expressionism or whatever. just like genre has become increasingly confused and meaningless in music, tho not to the same extent as visual art due to differences in production, distribution and consumption of each medium.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

or more or less what vimothy said, that there is no longer a universal appeal

 

[vimothy]

People would often refer to the blogs as a 'circle jerk' at the time, which was true. It's how you generate energy.

crowley would agree, I'm sure

 

[luka]

I had this vision today of corpses writing a book about his wanking life and it becoming a massive hit, generation defining.

 

[luka]

Just sitting down one day and going, right, time to get serious, and writing this book that touches a chord with millions

 

[linebaugh]

Yes I've seen that but was myself clued-in enough not to volunteer myself when asked for first timers.

no fun!

Like early I was trying to ground my lack of interest in Basquiat and it's just impossible, the system is "everything goes if people think it's interesting," so ultimately all you have is this subjective sensation of interestingness (or lack thereof). You can't criticize his form, or his use of color; anything that seems like a flaw could be intentional, or subversive, or "question our existing sensibility." This is the way that the entire project bbecomes primarily a language game—you spin a "conceptualization" of your work and people roll with it or they don't. More often, you have a small army of PR people—gallery interns, artworld journos who are friends of the artist—who do that spinning for them, create a narrative that gets traction. That's all it is.

Was having similar thoughts then too. I think it might be impossible to make interesting writing solely focused on why x/y/z piece of art is bad. best art writing is additive, spins a web of associations that doesnt seem to work when focusing on why some painting is shit. You could still tell us why you think Basquiat looks bad or uninteresting though

 

[vimothy]

I had this vision today of corpses writing a book about his wanking life and it becoming a massive hit, generation defining.

"this wanking life" - now a major motion picture

 

[sus]

This is what we should do then we can be rich and famous. People would often refer to the blogs as a 'circle jerk' at the time, which was true. It's how you generate energy.

100%, it's how this entire Brooklyn Culture Mafia works. As Kaitlin Phillips (or maybe it was Natasha Stagg?) once put it, The writer gets invited to an exclusive party so as to write about said party and how exclusive it is.

 

[sus]

I mean interestingness is my ultimate criteria. tbf I'm not an art critic or promoter so subjective sensation - or instinct, I'd call it - is all that matters.

the rest of what you're describing just sounds the art hustle as it's always been

everything is always just a conceptualization that you roll with or don't

it seems to me like the hugely more fragmentary nature of media now and the way that omnipresent social media totally dissolves art/not art for an artist makes it harder to coalesce a group of artists around a conceptualization like expressionism or whatever. just like genre has become increasingly confused and meaningless in music, tho not to the same extent as visual art due to differences in production, distribution and consumption of each medium.

I feel like you're not quite engaging with my point about baseline skill. It's about the ratio of spin to the rest.

The ready-made is the ultimate example of this. Warhol doubles down on it with his Superstars and supreme marketing chops. (Another example of this "pod energy")

I don't think there are pre-modern equivalents, where the way something is conceptualized can take it from non-art to art, or from non-masterpiece to masterpiece. I'd be curious an example if you know one.

 

[sus]

Was having similar thoughts then too. I think it might be impossible to make interesting writing solely focused on why x/y/z piece of art is bad. best art writing is additive, spins a web of associations that doesnt seem to work when focusing on why some painting is shit. You could still tell us why you think Basquiat looks bad or uninteresting though

Yes I think that's right. In the old pre-modern paradigm, you could rule things out—you could point to how they fail formally because there's a very specific, narrow window of what a successful image is.

Now it's more about positive momentum—take-downs exist, but they have to assume a whole critical values frame that basically no one will cede to them. It's like what @luka said to me once about when no one will accept your frame in a conversation. It just becomes totally ungrounded, you can't prove anything unless they accept your priors.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I actually don't think so. In part, 20th C viz-art was oriented around subverting previous factorings/critical hard-lines on art, so the absence of those antagonistic structures creates a void: what's left to subvert? (This is why some commentators think alt-right production could grab a foothold as "avant"—it subverts the one sacred value of the artworld left standing.)

More generally, I think a "post-critical" moment reflects a lack of purpose—it's unclear to artists themselves why they're making these works, what're they for. This is part of why I think activist art is so ascendent—it has a clear utilitarian purpose. Its practitioners are true believers. They're driven by narrative previously (recently) lacking.

I don't think alt-right cultural production will become art world, it's too strongly/intrinsically ideologically opposed. alt-right as avant or similar in a broader sense is something that's come up here many times and I still idk. it could fill the mental space but reactionary cultural production is always going to be reactionary, regressive. Nazi art - abominable ideology aside - sucks, boring, lifeless neoclassicism. see also the Soviet regime initially embracing the furthest out modern art then killing it in the name of Socialist Realism as reaction set in.

the point about artist purpose - intent - is good and sounds right. activist art is just about subverting different critical assumptions about art, those being unvoiced assumptions about the production and distribution of art.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I don't think there are pre-modern equivalents, where the way something is conceptualized can take it from non-art to art, or from non-masterpiece to masterpiece. I'd be curious an example if you know one.

the art world, art is a hustle, are all modern concepts. "art" is a modern concept. this is indirectly what Foucault is on about in The Order of Things in re the transition to a modern episteme - or they're the logical developments of that transition combined with a market economy.

I'm not disagreeing that conceptual spin to substance ratio takes a huge leap forward with modernism - it does. I just don't think it's really changed in the last 100+ years. some developments since then have required more baseline skill and some less but the conceptualization ratio hasn't steadily decreased it just varies contextually. plenty of things in the intervening don't are entirely conceptual, requiring no baseline skill. Malevich's White On White, 4'33", most performance art. people may or may not have run out of actual ideas - out of ways to subvert prior developments - but the conceptualize and spin game is same as ever.

 

[sus]

Yes I agree