i probably would still regret mentioning this, but i was interested in a request which asked that the stedelijk museum acknowledge the company responsible for the technology used in the artist jordan wolfson’s work manic/love.
another business promotion at the expensive of an artist or a calculated decision from an investor, the gallery did have a considerable stake in the production after all.
so always in the defence of an artist, i went to see this. the doll didn’t move me but i was thoroughly amused by the reactions of the other spectators (especially the guy cruising me from across the room) as the sculpture seemed to push an emotive response rather than evoke it (one of the tediums of contemporary/ new generation tech art which i suppose i should just get used to). another video piece; sports commentator like, inciting excitement, interrupted only by what could’ve been a jingle and an ad for the local mall, also left me cold.
the work in short; a forgettable mimicry devoid of contemplative artistry which is probably geared more towards a entertainment starved and image saturated audience, which is where it should have stayed if it wasn’t for that ridiculous comment in the art newspaper; now (even from me) the artwork gets much more attention than it deserves.
sent from my ipad/ iphone/ imac / etc.
to put on my reading list: popular marketing myths.
the stedelijk responds with an appropriately diplomatic, ‘it is not common practice…’ followed by an insightful quip (i mean whip).
commentary in the art world has for the most part become a dusty collection of adjectives and cease to have impact (yours truly included) since the demand on gratifying an illiterate community of blind buyers and sightseers have castrated critics and curators. commercial interests seem to be the only point on the arts agenda.
i’ve lost count of how much it costs to change a light bulb.