Yes but Brecht didn't just incorporate "popular" forms as a means of "speaking" to his audience in their language but also to subvert those forms to enable the audience (who he wanted to empower - not see as passive viewers) to see beyond the surface and to question and challenge the "authority" of theatrical representation.
My view of Hirsts art is based on my own disdain for his style of showmanship and the crass quality of much of his work coupled with Marxist critiques I have read of his work - I feel the same way about the Chapman bros and to a lesser extent Emin (though at least with her there are elements I can relate to personally). What sparked me off though was the comparison with Picasso etc - no way Jose! My comments about his sponsers were intended to highlight the fact that it's hardly surprising that people who make a living out of promoting the Tories should wish to promote art that stops people thinking critically.
I agree with you to an extent about not denigrating the cultural preferences of others - there is a balance between being elitist and being patronising. I wasn't saying soaps etc are not a valid form of expression, but rather that these things are fed to "the masses" of people on the basis that they aren't capable of understanding anything better - a cynical and patronising view of the majority of mankind. I think people are capable of much more and I'm sure you do too - thats why I disagree with the relativist view that popular culture is just as good as any other.
formulaic, (un)original, and other shallow words..
-
- KVRAF
- 37408 posts since 14 Sep, 2002 from In teh net
-
- KVRAF
- 2336 posts since 13 Oct, 2002 from Terra Firma
My point is that 'popular' culture is a misnomer that is coined to create an imaginary separation between different forms of culture. It is value loaded and is, ironically, used precisely in order to patronise and create elitism.
When I compare Hirst to Picasso I'm referring to how both artists introduced a new way to conceptualise our world. Picasso's impact appears much greater because of the way art was seen in the period he created cubism. But I think Hirst, with his installations, has defined late 20th century capitalism and its ever greater appropriation of our bodies as product.
When I compare Hirst to Picasso I'm referring to how both artists introduced a new way to conceptualise our world. Picasso's impact appears much greater because of the way art was seen in the period he created cubism. But I think Hirst, with his installations, has defined late 20th century capitalism and its ever greater appropriation of our bodies as product.
-
Jaeson Merrill Jaeson Merrill https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=29081
- KVRian
- 1185 posts since 10 Jun, 2004 from nowhere you believe in
if a song changed constantly, it would kill it.
theres is certainly a balance to be had with predictability and unpredictability, or you could be chick corea
theres is certainly a balance to be had with predictability and unpredictability, or you could be chick corea