2003.02.24
Re: Cremaster Cycle
We celebrate an artist's unique vision and his/her ability to execute that vision. Yet we also (less explicitly) celebrate an artist's ability to be sold (i.e., the exchange of significant amounts of money). The irony comes in when in reality an artist that isn't sold will most likely never be celebrated for their unique vision and their ability to execute that vision.
As Mike Kelley inadvertently(?) points out in Foul Perfection, there are at least two active artworlds that make up ongoing art history—those that play by the 'club' rules and then those that are (either) heretics, apostates, revolutionaries, etc.
How much difference is there now-a-days between contemporary art history and the record of what art sold/sells well?
|