pseudo-human

As far as male-hero-painters go Pablo Picasso is up there at the top of the sacred pile with the flame-haired Dutchman and his best mate Paul. Of course having been recognised in his own time it would appear that Picasso has more in common with the later mentioned Frenchman. However, If I may I would like to beg to differ. It now seems that the old PR guys are fabricating a complex web of mythology around the modern Spanish Master to rival that of one Vincent van Gogh.

Picasso: Peace and Freedom currently showing at the TATE gallery in Liverpool is an exhibition that leaves you pleasantly tickled and worryingly unnerved at the same time. The first of these two polar emotions is had whilst reading the pamphlet that accompanies the exhibition; which reads like it was written by Peter Mandelson. The second is felt upon leaving the exhibition at the moment of realisation that some of the people at the gallery may have actually believed what was written in it. One of the more fantastical aspects of this show must be that the TATE’s spin-doctor implies old Pablo was responsible for inventing the Dove as a symbol of peace. ‘With the Dove of Peace Picasso created an extraordinarily powerful and lasting political symbol, adopted by campaigners for peace…’. Wow…erm, okay. As bad as this historical misdemeanor is though, it may be forgivable, after all you can’t expect that everybody has read the Book of Genesis.

One thing the booklet does make clear is that Picasso loved women. Oh boy, Picasso sure did love women. Just perhaps not the way in which the TATE tells it. There is mention of ‘Picasso’s active support of women’s causes. He often generously donated work to women’s organisations…’. True. Picasso did give generously to women; via his penis.

Regarding the actual exhibition however, it would be hard for even the most fanatical of Picasso fanatic’s not to be disappointed with the work on display. For a retrospective of Picasso that focused on his political activism, the exclusion of his most daring political triumph Guernica was a bit of a poor showing at  best. I know acquiring pictures from other museums is inevitably dictated by politics, and I can imagine the Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofia will be keen to keep their star attraction in their possession all year round. So if Guernica was well out of the reach of TATE the question must be asked; why did the curators choose such a political theme? In this event I would propose a better theme for a Picasso retrospective. One that is both more interesting and perhaps more easily achieved than the current show. Picasso: Misogyny, Whores, and the Casual Fuck.

I primarily focus on exploring issues and asking/answering questions surrounding the art market and the labour market in general. Marxist philosophy often punctuates the rhetoric of my work. The reccuring theme in my recent work has been the idea of ‘exchange’ and alternative forms of payment/currency (such as payment in favours etc.) I have also been keen to explore issues surrounding ‘authenticity’ and value. A large part of my practice involves discourse/discussion and involvement from others in the making of my work. I am particularly interested in the notion of having ‘others’ (who may or may not be artists) making/manufacturing and even creating my work for me.  Through this I am exploring the role of the artist and often attempting to undermine the importance of the artist; drawing attention to myself and then challenging what I am doing and the consequence of my own existence. My process of research always encompasses the pulling apart of the idea which I’m exploring; by undermining the very concept which I am trying to communicate.

Is art greedy, unfair, and selfish? Does art have a social responsibility?

My work rarely conforms to the ‘traditional’ procedures of fine art practice. I do not paint sculpt and rarely draw. I have limited skills in these disciplines. Does this make me a poor artist?

I have worked with biro on post-it notes and also transfer-print onto t-shirts. The use of non-traditional materials has been largely a conscious decision in an effort to examine, and in some cases reject the idea of the coveted, mythical and heroic concept of the ‘art object’. This has led me to develop an aesthetic which is minimal and utilitarian. There is a blatant rejection of decoration and embellishment. My work becomes ‘stripped back’ in order for me to achieve clarity and attempt to eliminate distractions or detractions. I believe in only showing absolutely the basic necessity needed to form and idea, ask a question, or convey a message. Any more feels self-indulgent, confusing, or overcomplicated.

 I have also flipped the idea of the idolised ‘art object’ around by creating my own  ‘art objects’ (in the form of printed t-shirts) and putting them up for sale in a performance, where the audience were somewhat unaware that they were participating in a critique of the market. In this particular work I was also interested in the blurring of the boundaries between mediums where a performance was masquerading as a sale of what was believed to be my ‘artwork’. Here I wanted to examine the relationship that people have with art. From the connoisseurship of wealthy collectors down to the general public’s infatuation with mass produced and readily consumed ‘wall-art’.

Why is it that people need art in their lives? Why do artists feel they need to make art?

The question of value is always ever present. How do we determine value? Is skill more important than beauty? Or should the value of something be only ascertained by the cost of its production? The value of art is often determined by the identity of its creator. The signature or autograph of the artist/celebrity is a fascinating idea; giving objects a divine touch or rubber-stamp of quality, ensuring value.  It seems the name or signature has taken precedent over the ‘touch’ of the artist. How long will this continue?

Is art a business? Are artist entrepreneurs who only work to sell their produce and make a profit?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

Most recently I have focused my efforts into completing collaborative work. As part of the ‘apocalypse’ group we developed work critiquing and exploring the notion of documentation, particularly documentation of performance art. There were also questions raised about the participation of the audience in the fabrication of an event or a lie. The project also constructed a discourse surrounding the idea of the lived experience and the importance of the lived experience in regards to durational performance art. We were also attempting to attack/expose the idea of the artist who must suffer for his/her work. This project seemed to link back to my explorations into authenticity, and the absolute importance of authenticity in the market. There was also a major link to my t-shirt project. Once again I found myself executing a performance that was masquerading as something else; in this case it was an exhibition.

Collective or collectivised art-making is an area I’m keen to explore. I’m particularly enamoured with the idea of making work that has no singular maker/creator/author; where the actions of an individual artist are indistinguishable or even insignificant; work that not only critiques the accepted conventions of the current relationship between the artist and the market but also the wider labour and manufacturing markets that operate on a global scale. I see an importance in collectivised art where the artist is anonymous or may exhibit under the name of a group or collective; the personality or identity of the artist is nullified and the work can be judged more in a more objective manner.                                                                                                                                               

I take influence from relational works which rely on social interaction to come into being, and aim to eliminate the idea of the privately worshiped ‘art object’. I hope my future work can examine social relations between people, not by representing them through paintings or objects but by actually creating, staging, or manufacturing the realities of human interaction.

The other night I was dreaming that England were losing to Slovenia in the World Cup to a score of 4-0. All of a sudden I realised that England had already beaten Slovenia 1-0 the previous day. Through the powers of my lightening quick deduction I surmised that I must be dreaming. Yay, I thought, lets have some fun. 

The only thing I could think of doing in this situation was to kick the TV. Sitting watching all of this was my dad, who was considerably annoyed by my actions.

“FUCK YOU, IT’S JUST A DREAM, YOU CAN’T DO ANYTHING. YOU AREN’T REAL” I yelled.

Then I awoke. Shit, I’ve waited a lifetime for the opportunity do whatever the fuck I want and all I can think of doing is to kick the TV. What a waste.

After hitting Waz last night I came up with a new solution to the ever growing problem of too many cunts in bars and clubs. The policy of most doormen is to judge people when they come in and refuse those who are too pissed. This works quite well, but still we find our selves with a large number of dickheads hanging around inside.

I have a much better way. The song ‘Don’t Stop Believing’ by Journey should be played periodically throughout the night. Anyone who dances/sings along should be immediately ejected.

Sorted.

narcissist boy

without a gun

do you believe in karma?