Do you think a re-valuation on the part of artists of art and it’s practical worth to the general population is necessary? Or is it the art world/system of dissemination that needs changing? (You already said something about that in your last paragraph. Just asking.) Maybe both.

some more fodder for the rock n’roll painter:

“…I have gradually come to distrust the very idea of high art in a democracy. I mean, what would it be like? Aristocratic cultures have a high and a low. They have higher-ups and lower-downs, and consequently they may, on occasion, create a socially engaged, commercially disinterested high art that trickles down to instruct and inform the ‘lower orders.’ In a mercantile democracy, however, the only refuge from the marketplace is in the academy. So democracies, I fear, must content themselves with commercial, popular art that informs the culture and non-commercial, academic art that critiques it - with the caveat that, even though most popular art exploits the vernacular, some popular art redeems it - even though it’s still for sale. To reach this conclusion I asked myself these questions: Is a painting by Jackson Pollock or a film by Stan Brakhage high art? Yes? Well, if so, could the art of Pollock or Brakhage exist without the imprimatur of Dizzie Gillespie and Charlie Parker? Could I have understood it without its being informed by the cultural context of American jazz? Without the free-form exuberance fo bebop? My answer: No way, Jose. And, conversely could bebop exist without Jackson Pollock and Stan Brakhage? You betcha. And could rock-and-roll exist without Warhol? Yep. And could Andy Warhol exist without rock-and-roll? I don’t think so. These answers, of course, tend to confirm my own predisposition to regard recorded popular music as the dominant art form of this American century. My point is that Pollock and Warhol do not exploit the lumpen vernacular, they redeem it - elevating its eccentricities into the realm of public discourse. As a consequence, the work of Pollock and Warhol, like that of Rembrandt or Dickens or David, is the best that popular, commercial art can be - doing the best things it can do.”

-Dave Hickey “The Delicacy of Rock & Roll”

I see more of a need to change the modes and networks of art display and distribution. I really don’t care how “artists” evaluate “art” or if they even think that it has practical worth, that’s not for me to really dictate and I have no real power over it so…

From the beginning, most galleries, kunsthalles and armory-type exhibitions have not really sought to do anything different than the museums and other more well-established institutions. It’s true that many galleries are set up to funnel artists into museums and therefore conduct themselves as mini-museums. That’s fine. Commercial art needs commercial venues. People need to make money. But what about the other stuff? What about the non-commercial stuff? There are some smaller spaces that exhibit work because they love to exhibit interesting new work. Their main goal is not necessarily to become a major force in the art market, buying, selling, and promoting artists to biennials and art fairs. So why do they try to act like the big boys? White walls, a front desk with an aloof art-girl-secretary guarding the door, title cards, full-color offset litho postcards, the works. If commerce isn’t the endgame, why create and exhibit commercial work?

If you pay attention to the lore of the early 80s punk days, many bands were starting from scratch. These bands were started by kids for kids and had to invent a new touring network. They didn’t think they were starting a network at the time, but it happened. Most couldn’t play in bars and many didn’t want to since bars would eliminate their core audience. So they had to call up people they knew in different states, those people would talk to people they knew and gigs would be set up in odd places and backyards. Flyers were xeroxed from poorly pasted collages and then handed out to friends. Kids paid a few bucks for the experience, the band played, and a good time was had by all. They had some of the markings of the commerce of stadium-size shows — money collectors at the front gate, hand stamps/markings, a stage (if they were lucky), guitars, drums, mics, etc., but you can’t expect too much ingenuity from teenagers. but they knew they weren’t the big time and they were fine with that. They just kept doing what they were doing, building their networks, and making the music they wanted to hear. The great part about seeing a small show in a crap venue like Kilby Court (no offense to Kilby) is that it is a show for that venue. It isn’t a show for a stadium. The more different the venue, the more unique the presented material can be.

There are organizations like the Stray Show, Nada Art Fair, and the rest that are established, networked venues showing different art, but they usually cling tightly to a larger art fair like some sad orphan child begging for a crust of bread. They work under the museum model. I have yet to find out about a good network of art venues that circulate artists or shows on a more grass-roots level. I’d be ecstatic to find out about a group of people that tour exhibits in their living rooms. I would be excited if promoting art in an “acceptable” manner didn’t have to include full-color postcards. I’d like to see people use spaces that museums would find useless and exhibit work appropriate for museum-useless spaces. I would like to do all of these things myself, but I can’t. At least not right now. I would really just like to see people try things differently and be ingenious about how to do it.

That’s why Maria and I wanted to start FWiC (shameless plug: great new cycle on May 1). We wanted to promote the creation of works that didn’t have to rely on the museum model of display, that didn’t have to worry about being sellable, being archival, being accepted, being safe. Work that would allow growth. This comment is way too long. I’ll stop.

P.S. Dave Hickey is right most of the time. I don’t buy the Jackson Pollock vs. Bebop argument though. Too simplistic.