« so i had one more for dessert | Main | a lotta nerve »

October 30, 2006



Since you just pointed me to Edward's review, and since my response is buried at the bottom of a days old post, I'll repost it here. Hope you don't mind.

I'm reminded of a fragment of Suzi Gablik's similarly exasperating book Has Modernism Failed? (its obvious thesis being that yes, of course modernism has failed). She mocks the idea of courses aimed at helping artists succeed as business people, going so far as to include a picture of an advertisement for such a seminar. No doubt her position as a writer and teacher (I can't seem to find out where via Google, but I believe it is or has been at a university), places her above the filthy activity of making and/or selling art for profit.

The only workable formal definition of a "good" artist (to the best of my knowledge) is someone who makes "good" art Being that this is obviously circular, the only thing to do is to go out and actually look at a wide range of art, hopefully with a minimum of ideological baggage. Being greedy or corrupt--or alternatively, saintly and ascetic--is of great moral, social and political relevance. Its relevance to the quality of one's work is marginal as best. (I don't want to demean the potential import of political or activist art, but I wood focus on what the work does, rather than the on the sins or virtues of the author.)


Sorry for the spelling and punctuation errors. This always makes me feel worse than it should.


'Salright. It's a blog, spelling and punctuation errors are what we're all about. Good stuff, though--thanks for the comment. I'd be meaning to mention that you've been posting again, keep it coming.

The comments to this entry are closed.

From the Bookshelves


  • Send email to modkicks at yahoo dot com