Check Your Privilege At The Door

I was going to write a third and final piece about the long - running Richard Prince saga (to get up to speed please go back to my earlier blog, Bitch-Fest ) , but decided that it had devolved into the usual self-centred spectacle , with Doe Deere, The Suicide Girls, and others all claiming a piece of the media exposure, so I thought, why bother being part of that ?
The Suicide Girls angle is interesting because - do they intend to sell their original images with the amendments made by Mr Prince, thereby breaching the copyright of his intellectual property ?
Or will they just sell their original instagram photos, thereby breaching Instagrams rights ?
Which brought me to thinking the Big Question - Why ?

Suicide Girls join in the media feeding frenzy

WHY

This moment of existential self doubt was added to by then stumbling across a piece in my news feed regarding a separate issue (I include a link here) which is very dry, and the author debates the question of academics writing for free and asks whether they are, in fact, scabs:

'My use of the word “scab” is often met with a range of responses from irritation to blind fury.  Academics in particular, the sort who wax on about neoliberalism and its exploitation of labour, turn apoplectic as they insist that they’re not scabs but performing vital services by “choosing” to write for free.'

'But what is neoliberalism if not the rationalisation of capitalist exploitation under the rubric of “choice”? ' 

'what is neoliberalism', indeed.
The use of the word 'scabs' is highly emotive, given its previous use to describe those who cross picket lines in defiance of strike action and solidarity amongst workers.
For this reason it's a way of creating a sense of unity in a common cause.
It's also quite divisive in that it implies that anyone not following the authors reasoning is one of 'them', i.e. the 'enemy'.
The tone of the whole piece annoyed me, appealing to my sense of righteous indignation, and is indicative , in my opinion, of many of todays online problems.
It's a worthy read , as an example of the pretentious high-brow gibberish that gets bandied around.

Professor Brian Cox (yes. he of astronomy and previously D;Ream fame) said that part of the problem is the slew of self - published opinion pieces which could be mistaken for factual pieces.
This is almost tantamount to saying that the internet should be left to those who know best, thanks.
The next question is who knows best ?
Could it possibly be no-one, really ?

Let me take a deep breath, and stand back a little from the edge of this existential abyss.

1977 Primitive Blog...

As a disillusioned youth , I was inspired by the D.I.Y. ethos enshrined in punk / new wave, where many would attend gigs and scrawl reviews on paper which would then be xeroxed, stapled and sold for pennies  at gigs, or in record shops (remember those?).
The idea was that this was a form of empowerment, making a mark and taking control of a piece of media, rather than being told who to like and what bands to follow by 'the man' and his running - dog lackeys with their nepotistic promotion of mediocrity.
The downside of this of course, was that it was driven by a desire to stand out from a sea of faceless people, and fanzines were usually released without fanfare or a marketing budget: therefore making no money, or even losing money was considered par for the course, and a small price to pay for editorial freedom.

So here we are in the online world of the internet with its great levelling technology, where everyone can use the tools available to reach out and communicate for fun or learning or profit, or just to escape the humdrum workaday world - yet even here we encounter reactionaries masquerading as our superiors.

What I object to is the elitist agenda pushed by self-righteous types who flaunt their privilege by attempting to tell everyone else what not to do; i.e. unpaid writing !

What is missing here is the 'freedom of choice' option.

Don't get me wrong - I'd love to be paid for my rambling words.
What I'm saying is it happens regardless.
I feel compelled to write / create.
It's in the blood.
Therapy, if you like.

Looking back over this piece, I realise it's a bit divisive in the old 'us and them' way, and I apologise, but terms of reference are hard to come by these days without offending some poor flower...



Please note that the opinions expressed in this blog are purely my own, and in no way are they sponsored or solicited by paying causes.

Fuck 'em.

If a Rip - Off Rips Off a Rip - Off, is it a Rip - Off, or a valid Statement ?

Bricks are not works of art. Bricks are Bricks. You can build walls with them or chuck them through jeweller's windows, but you cannot stack them two deep and call it sculpture.
Keith Waterhouse, Daily Mirror, 19 Feb 1976.

Controversy in 1976...

The debate on the worthiness of the art of Mr Richard Prince continues, gathering media momentum, much like a snowball rolling down a hill.
The debate is polarising opinion, with many feeling that whilst he is indeed re-appropriating (without requesting permission ) the art of others, he is doing just enough transformative stuff to claim 'fair use'.

Andy Warhol controversy in 1962...

Some are pointing out the similarities with the Warhol soup cans , whilst others are bemoaning the misappropriation of Intellectual Properties (the original photographic images on Instagram.)
Meanwhile, images are being sold for around $ 90,000 and Mr Prince is no doubt weeping at his appalling lack of originality all the way to the bank.

It has been pointed out that on a purely technical basis, the reprinting of such images on a large scale would require some serious technical ability (think of the pixellation !).
Is it a post modern comment on the state of the Art world itself ?
If so, then technically Gagossian Galleries are to blame for first mounting the exhibition, having deemed it worthy of attention .
Then the issue falls to the first person who decided that $ 90,000 was a worthy price for an 'original'.

The issue is further clouded by the modern desire for visual affirmation - the online seflie thing that says hey, world, I'm here! 
I'm sure that many of those whose Instagram pics have been appropriated are not too upset - after all, the images were made public on social media, so another way to look at it is to question the strange invocation of privacy laws in such a global public location.

Pic by Doe Deere...controversial, too

My personal feelings are that it is further evidence of the commodification of Art, in which artificially inflated prices are achieved by media controversy - the very value of the art is directly proportional to the shock horror outrage , which is usually expressed in emotive tabloid terms- 'Children are dying of hunger, but some tosser just paid silly money for a Xerox of a Polaroid !'*


From the exhibitions of bricks in the Tate, to Tracey Emins unmade bed, the level of media hysteria seems to influence the perceived monetary value of the work.
I've put the word 'perceived' in italics because it really is about perception as opposed to nuts and bolts reality (ie cost of the materials used, time taken by the artist,etc.)

The artist Carl Andre whose piece 'Equivalent VIII' caused the British tabloids to explode with indignation way back in 1976 (see the opening quote), later denounced Conceptualism as 'humbug'.

STOP PRESS : in news just in , no less than the 'Suicide girls' are joining in, moving from victim status to 'Yes, please' - they are selling their own prints for $90,  as opposed to $90,000...so the whole thing seems to be descending into a post - modern free for all...can't beat 'em ?
Join 'em !

 I have spent more than enough time on the (non) - issue, but I hope you've enjoyed the pieces...

Equivalent VIII  pic from D. Telegraph

* Obviously both Xerox and Polaroid are brand names, so I should have said:
 '...a photocopy of an instant photograph'...