September 14, 2009
can art have “users”? [revisited]
One of my collectors, Tom LaPille just emailed me this- a photo of his “Quality” cube grenade, now safely hanging on his office wall.
Like I said back in April, it’s what the art DOES that’s interesting to me, more than what it IS per se.
We’ve always seen the Kinetic Quality working in marketing, working with brands. “By buying Brand X, I feel hipper, cooler, sexier, more secure, more in control” etc etc. But what I’m finding out is, this also works with art. To me, the interesting thing about art is not the usual “Heroic, absinthe-soaked, vision quest lone individual archetypal artist crap”, but how the art is USED by the person who has it hanging on the wall. What’s it actually there for? Decoration? Showing off? A conversation starter? An ice breaker? A way of telling a story? Something to brighten up the room? A symbol of social status? An expression of individual worldview? An expression of emotion? A totem to remind oneself of something inspirational and/or important? Perhaps a bit of all these?
So I’m seeing two worlds collide here: The internal, solitary part of making the art, and the external social part of how the piece of art is actually used. Art? Used? Is art actually allowed to be “used”? Would the Art Police allow that? Instead of calling them “Patrons”, can we call art buyers “Users” instead? Would you be offended if I called you that? There’s no wrong answer…
Anyway, as always, I love it when y’all send in photos. Keep ‘em coming, Thanks! Rock on.
[Backstory: About Hugh. E-mail Hugh. Twitter. Newsletter. Book. Interview One. Interview Two. EVIL PLANS. Limited Edition Prints. Private Commissions. Cube Grenades.]
The best way to support gapingvoid is to sign up to
"Hugh's Daily Frickin' Cartoon" Newsletter.
A new cartoon sent out every weekday morning to your inbox [RSS version here.].
A wee chuckle to start your day off right etc.
“I should be content
to look at a mountain
for what it is
and not as a comment on my life.” -David Ignatow
Hugh, hate to follow a series of questions with a series of question, but… is everything you produce on your terms, exclusively?
Your “enterprise” is organically scaling. (Congrats on the reception of your book, btw.) As patrons/collectors/sponsors/buyers, sic “users” congregate around your work, is it possible to divorce yourself, and subsequently, your art/production from the people receiving it? Any relationship in nature, something of the I enters into the Thou and something of the Thou enters into the I.
Towards creative fidelity,
Jason