[Art] The State of The Art

My first Rudy Word blog comes as an inspiration from Becky’s latest MySpace entry: a rousing look at one of New York’s more highly coveted artists of the day, Dash Snow, a so-called descendant of Andy Warhol’s downtown New York Factory scene of the 1960s (who is known, in part, for jerking off onto newspaper headlines and having his friends take pictures of him nude, doing lines of coke with hookers). And, as chance would have it, the inspiration it provided me is perfect for my first blog subject: the current state of art.

As Becky pointed out, the “cutting edge creativity” that is now put on the art world’s pedestal is little more than simple shock value, something that, to completely understate it, there has already been a plethora of over the past 40 years. Shock is what the artists want from the viewers and rebellion is what they want the audience to perceive in them. It is only too bad that the rebellion they imitate, the one that found much of its roots in the downtown New York scene of the 1960s, is now the cover story of the status quo’s weekly magazine. The Velvet Underground are in the Rock ‘N’ Roll Hall of Fame, and probably on the stereo of half of America’s boardrooms. (You can be sure Nissan advertisers were channeling that "non-conformity" when they used VUs “Heroin” in a Pathfinder spot that asked audiences to “explore”…something I can only humorously imagine a heroin addict even considering, and not so long as he or she had enough money to buy a month-long fix.)

The question now is not only why are these “rebels” still considered idols, but also, why does the art world, and artists themselves, merely wish to recreate the cum-shooting rebellion of their predecessors? The easy answer is: money, street cred, and, well, an easy answer. Let’s be straight: “Rebellion” sells, it makes people look tough, and it’s easy. Case in point: Pete Doherty and Kate Moss. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why two drug addicts, in this day in age, are considered cool, and, in Doherty’s case, why his art is not tossed amongst the used syringes for the lack of originality it, and his personality, show. But it has surely been an easy route to money, fame and credibility for him (though it is still mind-boggling to me).

What occurs to me is something Illinois Senator Barak Obama said in a recent story in New York magazine (and by the way, by bringing in a politician to comment I have hearby tossed aside any “rebellious” or “cool” rep I may have had). In talking about the current political state between Democrats and Republicans, Obama said that the way in which the two sides talk about the issues, it seems as though they are simply rehashing the arguments they were having in their college dorm rooms in the 1960s. I feel very similarly about art today.

In our current state it seems as though everyone is looking for “the next Bob Dylan,” “the next Andy Warhol,” “the next Jack Kerouac.” It makes sense. Everyone in the art world that builds the next superstar can remember when they first heard The Velvet Underground, and no doubt they were shocked and delighted by the envelope that was pushed. So it comes as no surprise that those searching for “the next big thing” want to floor their audiences as much as they were by the counter-cultural icons of the 1960s and ‘70s. The only problem is that when you are searching for the new Iggy Pop, you can only end up finding the old Iggy Pop, everything about which will be forty years too late, only this time ripe for commercial success. There’s nothing cutting-edge or original about that. The art world, much like the political sphere, seems to be simply rehashing the debates and themes of forty years ago…only this time with corporate sponsors.

Yes, rebellion is dead, and not too far behind it is originality (for further evidence of this just look at current fashion trends which are essentially just a retrospective on punk rockers, flappers and minutemen). So, what baffles me is why artists and the art world still covet so-called “rebellion,” and yet the answer is plainly obvious: rebels are the most sought-after demographic target. “Rebels” are not outside the box; there is a box specifically for them, one which has been charted, graphed, surveyed, analyzed and marketed. In fact, “rebellion” is the most marketable item out there. And if the most marketable item is your attempt at non-conformity then you need to find an artistic goal far beyond shock value and even farther beyond what your predecessors have already accomplished. But what is that? And will the art world take it under its capitalist wing? (Ask any decent hip-hop artist and they will tell you that without an album riddled in guns, drugs and hoes, they have no chance of reaching the very communities they wish to empower away from such stereotypes).

I could go into a tirade here about media conglomeration and the corporate stranglehold on America, but that would simply be bucking responsibility for the artistic vacuum to the very status quo art is supposed to challenge. The fact is artists are as much to blame as the finders, sellers and critics are.

Dash Snow is not a cutting-edge, rebel artist. He is a pawn in America’s corporate obsession with rebellion. He is little more than Lou Reed and Andy Warhol doing a spread for Hustler Magazine. His art is not original, and certainly not meaningful. It is actually something much worse: low-brow pretension. It reminds me of a certain platinum-recording rap artist: 50 Cent, who packages the rebellion of gang-violent ghettos to sell to middle-class, white, suburban youth. When Biggie Smalls did it, it was a heart-felt statement of ghetto reality, and often a melancholic one at that. When 50 Cent does it, it is capitalist plundering. Similarly, when Andy Warhol was paying an assistant to piss on his paintings, it was an experiment in artistic vulgarity; with Dash Snow it is a desperate attempt at rebellion. Yes, when it comes to challenging the status quo, time is of the essence. It seems the seekers of cutting-edge art have forgotten what year it is.

Read what the Saatchi Gallery of London wrote about Snow’s cum-stained newspaper headlines: “Adopting all the attitude of hip hop posturing, Dash Snow’s Fuck the Police presents a prized collection of newspaper headlines emblazoned with instances of cop corruption. Each salacious story is splattered with cum and framed and mounted as a trophy. Wittily combining protest with hard-core bravado, Snow’s installation draws upon fictional connotations to conjure sociopathic images of gangsta persona. In his ballsy statement of counter-culture vehemence, Snow merges Warhol reference with Tarantino sensationalism in humorously pathological display.”

Now, I cannot speak for those who appreciate or buy Snow’s art, but I did go to college (and majored in English) and I know bullshit when I read it. And this is a steaming pile. I’ll quickly break it down. Firstly, “the attitude of hip-hop posturing?” I think many of those living in poor neighborhoods would actually be quite offended by the idea that their gripes with the police are nothing more than “posturing” (if you have any doubts, just ask Sean Bell’s family). But, my favorite line is, “…draws upon fictional connotations to conjure up sociopathic images of gangsta persona.” I like this line for two reasons: 1. It reaches a level of bullshit I can only dream of achieving, and 2. The Saatchi Gallery actually spelled it “gangsta” with an “a,” just to increase their street cred I assume. I’ll tell you now, coming onto newspaper headlines is not sociopathic gangsta-ism. It is at best an empty comment and an impotent protest (and I’m sure I could find a couple thousand teenagers that have jerked off onto a newspaper before). Furthermore, the very description of it as a “fictional connotation” even further robs his art of any political comment it may have had in the first place. And finally, Snow is not referencing Warhol or Tarantino; it's the art gallery that's referencing them, in what is yet another transparent attempt to find the next rebel.

[Oh, and Snow’s art is not witty…not in the least. And it is certainly not ballsy (though I’m sure the Saatchi Gallery could not resist any effort to utilize that obvious pun).]

What occurs to me is a cycle of pretension that exists in art today on every level, from Dash Snow to Lindsey Lohan (whose latest pop album was described by All Music Guide as “a blend of old-fashioned, Britney-styled dance-pop and the anthemic, arena rock sound pioneered by fellow tween stars Hilary Duff and Ashlee Simpson. Lohan stands apart from the pack with her party-ready attitude and her husky voice.” For the record, Hillary Duff, Ashlee Simpson and Lindsey Lohan have pioneered nothing!) In Snow’s case, the pretentiousness of his art is utilized to even greater pretension by the gallery’s and critic’s descriptions of his work, descriptions which are then used to prey upon an unwitting audience that actually lives for pretentious writings about art, and who will then perputuate that pretension upon the masses. That’s right, the real subject matter of all of this work is you, the consumer…or should I say, the sucker, the one that actually believes that five-seconds of pre-mature vulgarity or a jiggy pop-beat is true art.

So, to return to my original question, where should art journey to next? If you thought I had a simple answer then I am sorry. And if you thought I had a sexy answer, then you should probably just continue praising the Dash Snow’s and Lindsey Lohan’s of the world. The answer I have is simply honesty. Dash Snow is not a rebel, and Hillary Duff is not a pioneer, and any critic worth a damn better know and say that. Art's next step should be an attempt to empower the audience toward staunch individualism, the kind that is not bound by any image, interest or affiliation, and if it does that, then it can avoid the pitfalls of the partisanship, the pretension, the corporate philandering, the superfluous deviance and the junky rebellion of the world today (and, not so coincidentally, forty years ago).