More Artstar

Hey, all. I actually find this whole debate an
interesting one, and it covers some of the topics I've
tried to address in my own work and in my curatorial
efforts. (I feel smarmy giving links, but ask me if
you want them.)

Reading TWhid's blog entry, below, I feel compelled to
ask (of him or anyone here who cares) what comprises
this "fine line" between the two extremes of "good Pop
Art and a sickening psychophantical homage to the
dominant media culture"..? And must all art that
appropriates the form and/or content of popular media
fall into one or the other of these extreme
categories?

Where does parody fit in, because to me, for something
to be truly successful, on a parodic level, it has to
be highly imitative–and, hence, to some degree,
reverent, even if only in the sense of (let's say)
what Jameson calls "nostalgia films," which are not
necessarily acting in praise… To me, it is this act
of shadowing (miming, resulting directly from, yet in
contrast and however shape-shifted) that best affords
the opportunity for critique. Admittedly, it is sort
of an act of relinquishing some of the sense of
"value" implied in models of authority (read:
authorship), in order to sort of free one's speech, ie
to protest.

But anyway. I also wonder how TWhid (& MRiver) would
situate their 1 year performance project re: reality
tv–and if they see similarities, then have they given
us "good Pop Art [or] a sickening psychophantical
homage to the dominant media culture"? ;)

Marisa


From TWhid <<

Feb 18, 2005
re: artstar.tv
posted at 17:51 /news/twhid

I'm reversing my earlier ambivalence regarding the
idea of Artstar.tv. I hate it.

How low can the art world stoop? Artstar.tv answers
that question by aping reality television. That is
pretty fucking low. I'm actually a fan of reality TV,
so, nothing against reality TV. I just think of art as
being different from entertainment (perhaps naively).

There is a fine line between good Pop Art and a
sickening psychophantical homage to the dominant media
culture. Perhaps Artstar.tv will stay on the the right
side of that line. Perhaps it will be a brilliant
critique of the reality TV phenomenon. Perhaps it will
subtly explore the nuances of the life of a working
artist in NYC or the nuances of different artists'
creative processes.

I doubt it.

It will be just a bunch of desperate artists doing
their best to suck-up to the art world honchos as they
watch their dignity being stabbed out like a stale
cigarette. >>

— Jason Van Anden <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> To view this entire thread, click here:
>
http://rhizome.org/thread.rhiz?thread442&text1357#31357
>
> + + +
>
> I searched Google this morning looking for online
> commentary about the upcoming (US) reality TV show
> "Artstar". For those of you who have not already
> quit your day job - I refer you to: www.artstar.tv .
> The week long open call starts next Monday -
> picture a long line of bohemian-types smoking and
> shivering in the cold as they wait to have their
> life's work ambivalently pecked over by some very
> well dressed art world dignitaries, Jeffrey Deitch
> cast in the role of Simon Cowell (or "The Donald"?
> I dunno, I just read about TV). I envision
> something like a living "A Chorus Line" but with
> artists - or "Who Wants to Marry A Millionaire" but
> with artists - or something.
>
> My search revealed that our very own t.whid was the
> only artist in with a blog brave enough to publicly
> express a mix of skepticsm and disgust. I am pretty
> sure we will hear a more about this next week -
> albeit after the cutting begins - links follow.
>
> Good Luck!
> Jason Van Anden
>
> MTAA blog entry:
>
http://www.mteww.com/mtaaRR/news/twhid/re\_artstar\_tv.html
>
> Google "artstar.tv":
> http://www.google.com/search?q=artstar.tv
>
> Clay Aiken:
> http://www.delafont.com/music\_acts/clay-aiken.htm
>
> Whatever happened to "Draw Tippy"?
> http://www.google.com/search?q=Draw+Tippy
>
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> + + + + + + + + +
>
> Rhizome.org is a 501©(3) nonprofit organization
> and an affiliate of
> the New Museum of Contemporary Art.
>
> Rhizome Rare is supported by grants from the
> Rockefeller Foundation, the
> Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, and with
> public funds from
> the New York State Council on the Arts, a state
> agency.
>
> + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
> + + + + + + + + +
>
> Rhizome Rare is filtered by Rhizome SuperUsers, a
> dedicated group of
> volunteer editors. To learn more about becoming a
> Rhizome SuperUser,
> please email [email protected].
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, visit
> http://rhizome.org/subscribe .
>
> Subscribers to Rhizome Rare are subject to the terms
> set out in the
> Member Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php.
>
>



\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/

Comments

, Jason Van Anden

Hi Marisa,

Do you think Artstar is parody?

MO>(I feel smarmy giving links, but ask me if you want them.)

Please do. I am glad that I found the American Idol Audition Blog. (took a quick look for now, plan to revist when I have more time) Other links would be super appreciated.

Jason Van Anden

Marisa Olson wrote:

> Hey, all. I actually find this whole debate an
> interesting one, and it covers some of the topics I've
> tried to address in my own work and in my curatorial
> efforts. (I feel smarmy giving links, but ask me if
> you want them.)
>
> Reading TWhid's blog entry, below, I feel compelled to
> ask (of him or anyone here who cares) what comprises
> this "fine line" between the two extremes of "good Pop
> Art and a sickening psychophantical homage to the
> dominant media culture"..? And must all art that
> appropriates the form and/or content of popular media
> fall into one or the other of these extreme
> categories?
>
> Where does parody fit in, because to me, for something
> to be truly successful, on a parodic level, it has to
> be highly imitative–and, hence, to some degree,
> reverent, even if only in the sense of (let's say)
> what Jameson calls "nostalgia films," which are not
> necessarily acting in praise… To me, it is this act
> of shadowing (miming, resulting directly from, yet in
> contrast and however shape-shifted) that best affords
> the opportunity for critique. Admittedly, it is sort
> of an act of relinquishing some of the sense of
> "value" implied in models of authority (read:
> authorship), in order to sort of free one's speech, ie
> to protest.
>
> But anyway. I also wonder how TWhid (& MRiver) would
> situate their 1 year performance project re: reality
> tv–and if they see similarities, then have they given
> us "good Pop Art [or] a sickening psychophantical
> homage to the dominant media culture"? ;)
>
> Marisa

, Marisa Olson

P.S…

Jason Van Anden:
> MO>(I feel smarmy giving links, but ask me if you
> want them.)
>
> Please do. I am glad that I found the American Idol
> Audition Blog. (took a quick look for now, plan to
> revist when I have more time) Other links would be
> super appreciated.

Yes, TWhid linked to my AI project:

And then, on a curatorial level, I would point mostly
to the show POP_Remix, at SF Camerawork, last
May-June. This is the only documentation currently
online:

http://www.sfcamerawork.org/past_exhibits/pop_remix.html

and

http://www.sfcamerawork.org/journals/spring_04.html


Best,
marisa







__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250

, Jason Van Anden

Thanks for the links. I checked them out, as well as your American Idol blog in more detail. I am now even more curious about where you feel parody fits in with artstar.

Marisa Olson wrote:
>Where does parody fit in, because to me, for something
to be truly successful, on a parodic level, it has to
be highly imitative…

Best,
Jason Van Anden