Friday, May 4, 2007

Black Artists

The whole mood in the artworld has changed since Basquiat. He was a breakthrough. But he's sort of owned more by white audiences. He's problematic. I did a series called "Archetype, Quotation and Cliche".. Basquiat, Pollock and DeKooning, are archetypes, and as such they inspire cliche. I mean if you REALLY look at Elvis, or Tina Turner, or Liz Taylor..I mean if you get a chance to look past the OBVIOUSNESS of them you say to yourself..man this person really IS GREAT. You know..with Warhol, people said:"I can be a successful living artist in my 40's and 50's ..with Basquiat- they said: I can do this out of Artskool in my twenties!"

2 comments:

Anne Elliott said...

Would you say that Basquiat turned people into careerists and crippled their work? I'm curious, your thoughts on careerism and what it does to the work itself. It could have a positive effect. Role models often do. Or, it could make people fall into imitation, and lose their own individualism in the process.

Not just Black artists but anyone young, during that era. It was a very seductive success story.

Jim and I were walking through Green Wood cemetery one day and literally stumbled across his grave. It's in a row of other graves, all the same. Very humbling moment, to see where this art star ended up: in a big row of other Brooklynites, most regular working stiffs we never heard of.

christopherlee said...

Well as far as the (visual) artist as careerist, thing goes- I suppose first there was Pollock ..kind of..you know getting a little bit of bread.enuff to devote yourself. Then Warhol and a handful of the POP artists showed that you can sell yourself and your paintings just like you could sell baked beans and motorcars. Andy of course being the TRUE model of the "Commercial" fine artist. I think Basquiat and that generation of the Eighties put the final nail in the coffin of the "starving" obscure artist thing. It also says something about the wealth of the culture. More and More people had $. You didn't have to suck up to the crown or the clergy. If you could convince the merchant class that your abstract this and that was worth the cash, more power to you. Also the flood of artschool enrollment in the late 70's. This kids often came from money, they were smart and their friends and relatives were coming out of THEIR colleges making $ on wall street, madison avenue and Hollywood. Basquiat in particular , like Pollock, is sort of just one of those people who had IT. Just star quality in general. And everyone loves the tragic romantic. But the artworld itself was moving away from all of that. People would NEVER put up with a Jackson Pollock taking a piss in their fireplace or their million dollar Tribeca loft. People just weren't all that interested in the crazy romantic thing anymore. Rebellion and eccentricity had played out for the post-hippie generation. When you get out of artschool now your thinking resume and career track. People are automatically oriented to condo friendly well produced artworks. Sure their are alot of freaks and beats out their but the audience is so jaded and sophisticated that the Charles Bukowski, Allen Ginsburg, "down and out with an intense vision" thing doesn't really fly anymore. Sure people WANT to live in Williamsburg, but with WIFI, kohler fixtures and a gym membership. Your question is the QUALITY of the work. I think there is more CHOICE than ever, there is just so much VOLUME of production. I think that's true of all of the arts. I guess I am going to have to work these ideas out in a new post. Thanx for getting me started.