BLAKE

The Conversation that wasn't...

For me, what stood out about Wild Choir were the choices Blake made when he selected Ossie Clark, David Berman, and Malcolm McLaren as the cultural icons for these absolutely wonderful portraits. I realize he touched on his thought process during an interview with Jonathan Binstock, but I don’t think- “I picked complex subjects on purpose in order to upend what is now a very conventional expectation for pop art, which is that it aspires to be some sort of ironic sign that holds less and less immediate complexity”- is enough.

Jeremy Blake is a Serious artist, not an entertainer. His work contains social and historical importance; it critiques the world in which we live. Sodium Fox alludes to contemporary media and its increasingly consuming presence in our daily lives, while at the same time portrays an artist (Berman) with whom Blake admires because he continues to take risks in the face of success. Berman shuns the same fame that only our contemporary media can create. With Glitterbest, it’s almost impossible not to want to delve into the significance of McLaren (and everything PUNK he represents) as the subject for Blake’s final work, which his July suicide ended prematurely. And finally, why does Blake even care about Ossie Clark? What is his attraction to an English fashion designer from the Swinging Sixties?

With this in mind, the real question is--- what is the meaning and value of these choices from an artist who is not only aesthetically genius but also is willing and able to comment on the current situation and happenings of the times?

The conversation that I expected was not the one that occurred. However, this is not to lessen the usefulness of the one that did take place, which seemed to center on affect and feeling (i.e. like an aquarium or slow drive down the Las Vegas strip). I wonder how much the discussion would have differed if the voices had originated from the field of IC? Either way, I find myself returning to CAGE and his ability to eloquently express the meaning and value of his work.

Conspiracy of Two (New York Magazine)
The Golden Suicides (Vanity Fair)

MCLUHAN (and ELLUL)

What is it about the artist that makes him/her immune?

It is madness. It is the irrationality of the Serious artists that enables him to avoid succumbing to the techniques that underpin the driving mechanisms of our modern, mediated, capitalistic way of life. It is the willingness to take risks, confront rejection, and embrace isolation. The Serious artist is able to comment on the moment because he has nothing to lose; he is not playing the same game. It’s easy to be critical when the stakes are not as high, when there is no instant accountability. This is why so many would rather reflect on the past or try to envision the future. It is a way of avoiding the present, which may be the hardest to face, but is definitely the most immediate with respect to our current situation.

CAGE

Although I did not find his film One 11 and 103 as engaging as, for example, "No Country For Old Men," I enjoyed it for what he was trying to achieve--- change the way we view and think about a work of art. However, this appreciation is only possible because of the accompanying documentary we watched afterwards; in it he explains his objectives and purpose for producing this piece. It seems that most artists such as Bob Dylan or Jasper Johns avoid (on purpose?) the act of expressing their interpretation of the overt meaning and value of their work. This doesn't appear to be the case with John Cage, a conceptual artist, who (based on my limited knowledge consisting of this film and "4 min 33 sec") reveals underlying theory in parallel with his actual work. If Cage had not provided context for "One 11 and 103," it would have meant much less. Instead it exists as an exception to the rule, challenging my approach of removing the author or creator from their privileged position within the field of cultural production.