Home

September 14, 2009

can art have “users”? [revisited]

2 Comments

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.]

Tags: Cube Grenades, Marketing, office desing Ideas, office space inspiration, office wall art, The Kinetic Quality, Tom LaPille

2 Responses to “can art have “users”? [revisited]”

1. Jason Stoddard says:

   September 14, 2009 at 12:38 PM

   “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

   Reply
2. A arte é sua até sair da sua cabeça | palitos de fósforo says:

   April 26, 2012 at 10:04 PM

   […] que bacana o que Hugh Mac­Leod, o autor desse mani­festo obri­gató­rio, tem a dizer sobre o assunto: To me, the interesting […]

   Reply