New Artist Statement
It's still a bit rough but this is my newest artist statement as it stands so far.
Feedback Welcomed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the contemporary era, the ideals set forth by the established high arts are nothing but a memory and the practices novel by virtue of their antiquity. Artists throughout the ages have compared their work to the world around them... nature... beautiful and graceful. In our society, the view we have is nothing more then a wonderland seen through the looking glass of TV and computer. Bacchanal images dance across screens of energized particles brought to you by sponsors pushing products at a click or phone call away. Like a scratched record, the same things play through again and again only now digitalized, the scratch made obsolete by a line of corrupted data. Because of this, art should reflect the fact that we are a society of reruns and repeats of clichés and catch phrases.
Raised as a media whore, I've turned to pimping. My work is bound to the b-movies, hoaky schlock that caters to the ADHD generation of microwave popcorn and instant messaging. But where is this desensitization which the news loves to blame for all of the faults of man? If the people are so blasé then why can I get a rise out of them with nothing more then a wandering breast, a hatchet to the head, or a dismembered fetus? Sex and violence are called juvenile ploys and so I group them with other juvenile ploys.. like nursery rhymes. "When I get all steamed up hear me shout, tip me over and pour me out" is the perfect theme for a murder of passion and Humpty Dumpty is an excellent candidate for the poster child of an abortion clinics. It's been called, "An unmerciful juxtaposition of comic and tragic." Honestly if people can be so happy they cry or so distraught they burst into laughter, is there really so much of a difference.
Duchamp reframed the role of artist as a presenter. Now a days, waist deep in Post Modern sentiment, an artist should pull from all sources. P.T. Barnum had 'The Greatest Show on Earth' and William Castle filled the theatre whenever it wasn't "Too Shocking." It is the showmen who draw a crowd and my work lies within the responses of those who interact with it. Art is no longer about an object. Instead it is about an idea and the actions through which that idea is presented. All the world is a stage and the artist is but a player acting out a role which draws from the iconoclasm of his archetype. One learns in theatre, you have to shout your whispers if you want them to register in the back row. You must always stay in character if you want to be convincing because you're presentation is only as powerful as your weakest line. The key to any communication is holding your audience attention, conveying information and illiciting a response. If I do this my work is successful even when it fails. Does this mean that I am an artist or an actor? Is there even a difference?
Feedback Welcomed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the contemporary era, the ideals set forth by the established high arts are nothing but a memory and the practices novel by virtue of their antiquity. Artists throughout the ages have compared their work to the world around them... nature... beautiful and graceful. In our society, the view we have is nothing more then a wonderland seen through the looking glass of TV and computer. Bacchanal images dance across screens of energized particles brought to you by sponsors pushing products at a click or phone call away. Like a scratched record, the same things play through again and again only now digitalized, the scratch made obsolete by a line of corrupted data. Because of this, art should reflect the fact that we are a society of reruns and repeats of clichés and catch phrases.
Raised as a media whore, I've turned to pimping. My work is bound to the b-movies, hoaky schlock that caters to the ADHD generation of microwave popcorn and instant messaging. But where is this desensitization which the news loves to blame for all of the faults of man? If the people are so blasé then why can I get a rise out of them with nothing more then a wandering breast, a hatchet to the head, or a dismembered fetus? Sex and violence are called juvenile ploys and so I group them with other juvenile ploys.. like nursery rhymes. "When I get all steamed up hear me shout, tip me over and pour me out" is the perfect theme for a murder of passion and Humpty Dumpty is an excellent candidate for the poster child of an abortion clinics. It's been called, "An unmerciful juxtaposition of comic and tragic." Honestly if people can be so happy they cry or so distraught they burst into laughter, is there really so much of a difference.
Duchamp reframed the role of artist as a presenter. Now a days, waist deep in Post Modern sentiment, an artist should pull from all sources. P.T. Barnum had 'The Greatest Show on Earth' and William Castle filled the theatre whenever it wasn't "Too Shocking." It is the showmen who draw a crowd and my work lies within the responses of those who interact with it. Art is no longer about an object. Instead it is about an idea and the actions through which that idea is presented. All the world is a stage and the artist is but a player acting out a role which draws from the iconoclasm of his archetype. One learns in theatre, you have to shout your whispers if you want them to register in the back row. You must always stay in character if you want to be convincing because you're presentation is only as powerful as your weakest line. The key to any communication is holding your audience attention, conveying information and illiciting a response. If I do this my work is successful even when it fails. Does this mean that I am an artist or an actor? Is there even a difference?