It is time to upgrade your browser! This site looks and acts much better in a newer browser. Go TO THIS PAGE to find LINKS to all the major NEW BROWSERS. The links are at the bottom of the page under "What can I do?"

Or, you may keep reading this ugly page.


[splash image]

MTAA-RR » news » twhid » yet even more artstar tv:

Feb 12, 2006

Yet even more

posted at 16:46 GMT by T.Whid in /news/twhid

On the RHIZOME_RAW list, Marisa Olson asks this question (re: this post),
I feel compelled to ask (of him or anyone here who cares) what comprises this “fine line” between the two extremes of “good Pop Art and a sickening psychophantical [sic] homage to the dominant media culture”..? And must all art that appropriates the form and/or content of popular media fall into one or the other of these extreme categories?
(As soon as I saw my words quoted back at me I thought, “Psychophantical? That’s not how you spell sycophantical.”)

Marisa goes on to say,
Where does parody fit in, because to me, for something to be truly successful, on a parodic level, it has to be highly imitative—and, hence, to some degree, reverent, even if only in the sense of (let’s say) what Jameson calls “nostalgia films,” which are not necessarily acting in praise… To me, it is this act of shadowing (miming, resulting directly from, yet in contrast and however shape-shifted) that best affords the opportunity for critique. Admittedly, it is sort of an act of relinquishing some of the sense of “value” implied in models of authority (read: authorship), in order to sort of free one’s speech, ie to protest.
What comprises the fine line? I don’t know, but I know it when I see it. Parody, it seems to me, is neither Pop Art or ‘sickening’ sycophancy. Good Pop Art doesn’t seem like straight-up parody to me as it’s critique isn’t as implicit. You’re not quite sure if Warhol is critiquing popular culture or celebrating it. His best pieces (and his life) seem to have a conceptual shimmer. One is unsure of his intentions. Nonetheless there always seems to be a critical text in there somewhere… it’s just hard to pin down sometimes.

I don’t think is intended to be a parody. Perhaps I’m wrong. It also doesn’t seem to be intended as Pop art. It just seems to be a regular ole reality TV show (which btw will air on the Zoom hi-definition satellite network) using reality TV conventions and grafting them onto the art world. This is only speculation, but there doesn’t seem to be a critical text or sub-text in sight.
But anyway. I also wonder how TWhid (& MRiver) would situate their 1 year performance project re: reality tv—and if they see similarities, then have they given us “good Pop Art [or] a sickening psychophantical homage to the dominant media culture”? ;)
1YPV doesn’t have anything to do with reality TV or Pop art IMO. Since reality TV is so heavily edited there isn’t really any formal connection. The closest thing it comes to is the 24/7 web-cams that Big Brother used to have online.

Thanks for the discussion Marisa :) permanent link to this post

MTAA-RR » news » twhid » yet even more artstar tv

1997 - 2006 M.River & T.Whid Art Associates. Some Rights Reserved. is licensed under a Creative Commons License with the exception of Website Unseen titles which are covered by agreements with individual collectors and otherwise where noted.