Damn!
posted by E at 4:52 PM
Monday, June 06, 2005
E-mail me:
jumboelliot@comcast.net
previous posts
- Congratulations
- Hip Hop 101 for Baby Boomers
- Hip Hop 101 for Baby Boomers
- Friday Cheese Fries
- False Idol
- Mug Shots
- Mug Shots
- Get Rich Quick Scheme! Part 4
- Hip Hop 101 for Baby Boomers
- Flossin' the Family
friends
tools
1 Comments:
I don't think the Slate article articulates anything new with regards to criticism of Basquiat. The exploiter exploitee argument was used durinng the 80s as well with regard to Basquiat and his blackness. In fact, the article seems like a bitter old art critic resentful of one man's celebrity status. The question is: does any of this matter? Meaning, does it matter if Basquiat is famous due to blackness, due to exploitation of blackness, due to being mythologized in film, due to his association with Warhol, or whatever countless other reasons may have been attributed to his fame? I mean, with the exception of the author's criticism that Basquiat's work seemes like stasis as opposed to development, there is no real assessment of the quality of the art itself. I like the art. I liked it before the movie. Maybe the movie made me like it more. I'm not sure. But again does it matter? We have no concrete guidelines on which to base art. Such guidelines would be impossible. So if an artist is famous, for whatever reason, if his/her work moves people, and inspires them to go to galleries/museums/libraries/etc. to view the work, isn't that significant in and of itself? Does mass viewership of a certain artist's work validate the art regardless of its "quality". I am inclined to say "yes". I think the argument that Basquiat maybe shouldn't be as appreciated as he is, is a trite, empty, and ultimately unproductive argument. Like it or not, the dude is famous. People like his work. And I'm not interested in superficial critiques.
Post a Comment
<< Home