RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
Columnists » Clayson
Article rated a 1
by 1
users |
~ADVERTISING~
Dennis Clayson
On occasion in this space, I like to keep abreast of our more famous University of Northern Iowa graduates. Since I am an art aficionado, I have tried in the past to keep current on the times and career of Justin Case, UNI's most celebrated art graduate.
As the regular readers of this column will recall, Case was concerned about modern art. Most of it is ugly and unskilled, but justified by the art community by three rather loose rules or constructs. First, true art must make us think. Second, true art must create emotion and challenge convention. This is done rather simply in most cases by attempting to shock the viewer (pardon me, "experiencer"). Third, since modern art can be produced by almost anyone, art is not art unless the art is produced by an artist.
The corollary to rule three is that anything produced by an artist can be claimed by that artist to be a piece of art.
Case realized that spray painting swastikas on Jewish synagogues would satisfy all of the rules, but such an act would be criminal, and would gain nothing. That is, by violating the law, political correctness would not be advanced.
Unlike so many artists, this actually bothered Case.
On a hot day in August, Case had painted himself blue and chained himself to a 1960 Volkswagen doing a piece of performance art when he had something of an epiphany.
All the contradictions about the nature of art could be resolved by simply recognizing that modern art was all about thought, ideology, and emotion, and, except for execution, had nothing to do with anything actually produced.
With this insight, Case began a new art movement --- could we say, even a new art revolution called Refusalism.
The basic tenet of Refusalism is that true art can not be achieved if art is actually produced. An artist conceives of the art, but must never produce it, i.e., he or she refuses to actually construct the piece.
Case began showing his art, which consisted of blank walls with little titles under the blank space in New York galleries. He was an instant sensation. The East Coast art crowd was simply gaga over Case's work.
He was, of course, widely prolific producing work in a constant stream of blank walls and creative titles. His most famous piece, which sold for over $3 million, was a blank wall with a blank title.
Case had a huge following until he actually produced a large pyramid of honeydew melons with a blinking neon cherry on top. His followers were outraged that he had violated the first tenet of Refusalism and a huge controversy developed. Case's only defense was, "Well, I had all these honeydews."
The fuss got so bad that Case moved to Montana and hid out in Hamilton in a mansion made of logs.
So imagine my surprise when last week, as I wandered through Stanley Park in Vancouver, I saw Case sitting in the shade of a giant cedar tree drawing portraits of tourists in charcoal.
Case was wearing a tattered UNI sweatshirt and was rendering some of the most startling photographic-like images I had ever seen. Each, however, was totally unique and carried a nuance that was an extraordinary complex amalgamation of both Case and the subject.
He was selling them for $100 Canadian, which seems to be worth about $200 American. There was a long line of potential customers waiting patiently for their turn.
An article in the local newspaper written by a Vancouver art critic indicated outrage at what Case was doing. It seems that another local artist, who specializes in throwing vomit-colored hot plastic at a wall, had broken down in tears and threatened to commit suicide or move to the United States when he learned that Case was wasting his artistic talents.
"It is so sad," he explained between sobs, "that an artist with such potential is wasting it in such a commercial manner." He stated that Refusalism may never recover from the apostasy of its founder.
"Case," he surmised, "has sold out to commercialism. He no longer seeks out government funding, or sells his work to rich patrons in New York and LA. Instead he draws pictures of tourists. It is all very sad, and very disturbing."
But it was a nice day in the park, and Case was smiling.
As the regular readers of this column will recall, Case was concerned about modern art. Most of it is ugly and unskilled, but justified by the art community by three rather loose rules or constructs. First, true art must make us think. Second, true art must create emotion and challenge convention. This is done rather simply in most cases by attempting to shock the viewer (pardon me, "experiencer"). Third, since modern art can be produced by almost anyone, art is not art unless the art is produced by an artist.
The corollary to rule three is that anything produced by an artist can be claimed by that artist to be a piece of art.
Case realized that spray painting swastikas on Jewish synagogues would satisfy all of the rules, but such an act would be criminal, and would gain nothing. That is, by violating the law, political correctness would not be advanced.
Unlike so many artists, this actually bothered Case.
On a hot day in August, Case had painted himself blue and chained himself to a 1960 Volkswagen doing a piece of performance art when he had something of an epiphany.
All the contradictions about the nature of art could be resolved by simply recognizing that modern art was all about thought, ideology, and emotion, and, except for execution, had nothing to do with anything actually produced.
With this insight, Case began a new art movement --- could we say, even a new art revolution called Refusalism.
The basic tenet of Refusalism is that true art can not be achieved if art is actually produced. An artist conceives of the art, but must never produce it, i.e., he or she refuses to actually construct the piece.
Case began showing his art, which consisted of blank walls with little titles under the blank space in New York galleries. He was an instant sensation. The East Coast art crowd was simply gaga over Case's work.
He was, of course, widely prolific producing work in a constant stream of blank walls and creative titles. His most famous piece, which sold for over $3 million, was a blank wall with a blank title.
Case had a huge following until he actually produced a large pyramid of honeydew melons with a blinking neon cherry on top. His followers were outraged that he had violated the first tenet of Refusalism and a huge controversy developed. Case's only defense was, "Well, I had all these honeydews."
The fuss got so bad that Case moved to Montana and hid out in Hamilton in a mansion made of logs.
So imagine my surprise when last week, as I wandered through Stanley Park in Vancouver, I saw Case sitting in the shade of a giant cedar tree drawing portraits of tourists in charcoal.
Case was wearing a tattered UNI sweatshirt and was rendering some of the most startling photographic-like images I had ever seen. Each, however, was totally unique and carried a nuance that was an extraordinary complex amalgamation of both Case and the subject.
He was selling them for $100 Canadian, which seems to be worth about $200 American. There was a long line of potential customers waiting patiently for their turn.
An article in the local newspaper written by a Vancouver art critic indicated outrage at what Case was doing. It seems that another local artist, who specializes in throwing vomit-colored hot plastic at a wall, had broken down in tears and threatened to commit suicide or move to the United States when he learned that Case was wasting his artistic talents.
"It is so sad," he explained between sobs, "that an artist with such potential is wasting it in such a commercial manner." He stated that Refusalism may never recover from the apostasy of its founder.
"Case," he surmised, "has sold out to commercialism. He no longer seeks out government funding, or sells his work to rich patrons in New York and LA. Instead he draws pictures of tourists. It is all very sad, and very disturbing."
But it was a nice day in the park, and Case was smiling.
More Stories from Columnists » Clayson
Phil wrote on Jun 11, 2008 1:38 PM:
" I guess we needed a change of subject for this week. Hopefully we will soon see Mr. Clayson address topics like the one that follows.
In 2005, the wealthiest 1 percent of the country earned 21.2 percent of all income, according to IRS data, while the bottom 50 percent of all Americans earned just 12.8 percent of all income, down from 13.4 percent, a year earlier. 19 Together, these two figures define a new postwar record for American economic inequality, which is believed by many economists to be greater today than at any other time since the 1920s.
For working people, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation's gross domestic product since the process of collecting this data began more than sixty years ago. In the period since 2000 the number of Americans living below the poverty line has increased by nearly a third. Meanwhile, the average CEO of a Standard & Poor's 500 company took home $13.51 million in total compensation in 2005, a year in which the top 1 percent of Americans earned nearly 22 percent of all income. Believe it or not, by 11:02 A.M. of the first day of work on the first day of the year, one of these average CEOs will "earn" more money than a minimum-wage worker in his company will make for the entire year. The media tends to treat these trends as merely the way the world works, but this is actually the essence of conservative ideology. As the political philosopher Michael Walzer pointed out in 1973:
At the very center of conservative thought lies this idea: that the present division of wealth and power corresponds to some deeper reality of human life. Conservatives don't want to say merely that the present division is what it ought to be, for that would invite a search for some distributive principle-as if it were possible to make a distribution. They want to say that whatever the division of wealth and power is, it naturally is, and that all efforts to change it, temporarily successful in proportion to their bloodiness, must be futile in the end.
One cannot help but ask: Why is this not the case in Europe or Japan? In fact, among major world economies, the United States in recent years has had the third-greatest disparity in incomes between the very top and everyone else; only Mexico and Russia are worse.
I guess some things are just more "natural" in the USA. "
In 2005, the wealthiest 1 percent of the country earned 21.2 percent of all income, according to IRS data, while the bottom 50 percent of all Americans earned just 12.8 percent of all income, down from 13.4 percent, a year earlier. 19 Together, these two figures define a new postwar record for American economic inequality, which is believed by many economists to be greater today than at any other time since the 1920s.
For working people, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation's gross domestic product since the process of collecting this data began more than sixty years ago. In the period since 2000 the number of Americans living below the poverty line has increased by nearly a third. Meanwhile, the average CEO of a Standard & Poor's 500 company took home $13.51 million in total compensation in 2005, a year in which the top 1 percent of Americans earned nearly 22 percent of all income. Believe it or not, by 11:02 A.M. of the first day of work on the first day of the year, one of these average CEOs will "earn" more money than a minimum-wage worker in his company will make for the entire year. The media tends to treat these trends as merely the way the world works, but this is actually the essence of conservative ideology. As the political philosopher Michael Walzer pointed out in 1973:
At the very center of conservative thought lies this idea: that the present division of wealth and power corresponds to some deeper reality of human life. Conservatives don't want to say merely that the present division is what it ought to be, for that would invite a search for some distributive principle-as if it were possible to make a distribution. They want to say that whatever the division of wealth and power is, it naturally is, and that all efforts to change it, temporarily successful in proportion to their bloodiness, must be futile in the end.
One cannot help but ask: Why is this not the case in Europe or Japan? In fact, among major world economies, the United States in recent years has had the third-greatest disparity in incomes between the very top and everyone else; only Mexico and Russia are worse.
I guess some things are just more "natural" in the USA. "
coldcorn wrote on Jun 13, 2008 9:36 AM:
" For comparison, some may wish an update on a non-fictional modern artist with UNI roots:
http://www.geocities.com/mvboyd/ "
http://www.geocities.com/mvboyd/ "
xdfred wrote on Jun 13, 2008 4:19 PM:
" Hey Phil, you left out the part about this is still the best country in the world to earn minimum wage in. The quality of life for a poor person in this country is better than middle class in many others. And you assume wealth to be a fixed quantity. It is not. Our economy generates wealth.
What's your solution to this non-problem? An economy based on take away? "
What's your solution to this non-problem? An economy based on take away? "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
ponders wrote on Jun 8, 2008 9:04 AM:
You have helped me to see that if I read the heading and view a blank comlumn, I can be truly inspired. No more confusion in this slot. No more wondering how point A became point C. Refusalism. What a concept.
While that certainly was not your focus, it sure hit home for this reader (refusalist). "