Theoretical Disengagement II

In our Postmodern society (contrary to recent wishful thinking - this theoretical juggernaut is still with us) the avant gardist, once the progenitor of new visual ideas, has been replaced by the more sellable indie auteur. The auteur begins her career as a "creative," then later, slides easily into a progenitor of product. But first, let’s discuss the idea of originality - so throughly discredited by Postmodernism. Today’s new artist is not required to find new ideas or even combine old ones, but it has become imperative that he repackage and rebrand previously successful themes. This is done in the same way that the advertising industry or fashion industry revamps an old product. We have discussed this previously in a blog entitled the New New and you can get it here. Basically the “new new” artist will “customize” a brand - in music it could be neo punk, in fashion neo 70s and in POMO art it’s whatever Taschen book happens to land in the hands of an ambitious grad student. It is the customization that is looked upon as innovation - leaving the basic product/form intact. It is an art production process based on precedent, basically adding the auteur's "taste" to familiar forms - this customization can be used across many sale points. Murakami is instructive for this idea with his latest show in LA opening a Louis Vuitton boutique selling the artist's customized high end goods to the art going masses. The artist who is pushing to rethink history or create theoretical visual advancement is missing the point of the new art entertainment corporation.

R&D is no longer the driving creative force behind the corporate or art world endgames. Mergers, takeovers & acquisitions and outsourcing drive the theoretical and economic engines of both the business and art worlds. The idea is that one swallows up one's competitors and their intellectual property instead of developing one's own. This strategy does two things - eliminates competition and insures the continuity and integrity of one's brand. An artist no longer has to understand the historic changes of art or develop a physical technical skill - the object is to use this history as a catalogue of styles to mix and match developing a branded product - cut and paste academicism. An example of this sort of styling in the art world is found in Jeff Koons' co-opting of James Rosenquist's painting style - customizing this style with his own treasure trove of symbolic tropes applied by a large staff of workers. Or more recently Richard Prince's use of a customized car that he "found" (thanks to Marcel Duchamp) as his sculpture...." Mr. Prince said he was still not quite sure what to consider the car, although he does plan an edition of three, and he thinks of the first one, recently completed for him by XV Motorsports in Irvington, N.Y., a high-end builder of modernized muscle cars, as an artist’s proof. (Its first appearance will be at the Frieze Art Fair next month in London, where the car was recently shipped.) Aside from minor customizing Mr. Prince asked for, the car is identical to an earlier Challenger XV made using vintage shells but filling them with new high-performance engines, suspension and steering. (The company’s prices start at $140,000.)" POMO theoretics is simply a catch-all for this subjective coordination. In basic terms - one doesn’t have to know how to design or build a car in order to drive it, or more importantly, show it. In this recent article in the Times about cooking shows examines the issue of concept over practice and how that has become the ground to launch entertainment products. The article makes clear that entertainment production is not the same as actual art practice..." As they pump out their books, sign their latest endorsement deals and add 3rd or 6th or 10th restaurants to their burgeoning empires, they move farther away from the meals that the diners in those restaurants eat. They’re less creators than conferrers, lending an aura of glamour to products manufactured and projects maintained by others." Understanding and developing theory - its practice and its physical applications is unimportant - only the "good taste" or belief of the chooser (decider) is at risk, and it is the successful tastemaker auteur who will later become the chief executive officer.

Over the last few years we’ve seen the art industry align itself with this corporate model - a corporate model based on the billion dollar entertainment industry. Big business strategies have become the endgame of the current art making and selling economy. Monetary and budgetary concerns are foremost in the minds of popular artists and their gallery venture partners today - not because they struggle to earn a living in a garrett - but because the professional manufacturing, advertising and proliferation of the work is an expensive enterprise in an international art market context. Additionally the Return On Investment must be corporate in nature. In order to meet the demands of a wider audience production outsourcing has become the preferred way to manufacture one’s fine art product - this practice has replaced Warhol’s factory, which in turn, had replaced Ruben’s studio. With this change in nature of art production comes the 20th Century POMO idea of an artist as a corporate director or chief executive of a branded style. As the artist has given up the actual work to others - the pieces can be designed by staff members (assistants), made by manufacturers (skilled workers) and sold through distribution centers (galleries) - all contracted, guided and approved by the chief executive tastemaker. But the road to becoming the CAO (chief artistic officer) of one’s own art corporation begins by obtaining the mythology of indie creativity that fuels this corporate entertainment industry. We shall examine these ideas in our next installment.

part 3 to come...