Jomar Statkun:

Not “who owns this image”… But rather, who’s getting paid for this image… And not just talking about the payment/power to the Artist or maker of it.
Who, in the whole system, is getting paid/attaining power through someone’s (artist) image/made object/idea? How is it that the image has actually enslaved the maker? Or, even more, how has the maker (artist) allowed the situation become that which what they made/make has the ability to enslave them?
What disfunction in art or in an artist today has allowed such a possibility to come into existence?
Fear of not being loved?  Fear of death?
Such fears have no place in the art we all try to pledge allegiance to – we should know better.  We are in many ways fooling ourselves or pretending to be the artist that we only are brave enough to talk about, as opposed to actually becoming.
We all may be talking the talk, however, it may be time the Artist stands up and challenges the master.  The Master being the fearful ego of the artist, that allows such a situation to exist at all.
If the Artist can challenge the Master, the greater social systems will follow suit, or will at least have an example for disrupting such a contagious disfunction.


Continued conversation in comments below…

Plus, video from the discussion:


2 thoughts on “Thoughts from discussion (Feb. 19th, 2014) at “Jomar Statkun” exhibition at Garis & Hahn”

  1. Glad you wrote this post Jomar… I wrote notes last night when I got home from the talk. See below a run-down of moments that I felt stood out, followed in a few cases by further commentary from me. Very stimulating discussion that contained moments of wisdom (a little wisdom goes a very long way). – Blake

    Chinese knock-off manufacturing, selling back to the US is a form of economic warfare
    – Joan

    Subtext is subjugation of the artist.
    US has a history of murdering groups that stand in its hegemonic path, so now when faced with artists rabble-rousers the preferred method of liquidation is to shut them up by making them rich.
    – Chris

    What if all artists decided to stop making art objects? What would happen? Things would go haywire
    – Chris
    —–> More so than our impulse to make objects, I think the stronger impulse is to engage in work, whether it leads to an object or not. The farmer may be destroyed by his crop dying in drought, but he still maintains more spirit than if he never bothered to plant the crop in the beginning. Labor for its own sake, divorced from production. (Blake)

    “Planting the stake” happens when an artist decides to make something, even just for themselves. A discourse between the artist and the artwork emerges through making.

    The “work of art” is typically thought of as being transcendent to the “art work”.
    – Mike
    —–> Do immaterial forces of propagation need to be considered in a vertical relation to material objects? Why can’t these forces and objects be considered as equal agents in a field of wave phenomena? (Blake)

    Ai Weiwei destroying an ancient Chinese vase is different from this other guy destroying Ai Weiwei’s vase art.

    Ai Weiwei hasn’t been killed by Chinese govt because his father is artist aristocracy from Cultural Revolution.
    – Chris

    Five types of criticism: Technical is interrogating the object, Practical is interrogating the artist, Social is interrogating the context in which the artist and object exist, Theoretical is interrogating the pure work of art and its place in historical discourse. The fifth may not actually exist and can only be stated by a critic of celebrity stature, and it is to simply say “I don’t like it.”
    – Mike

    Richard Prince makes only a brief theoretical remark in his criticism that Jomar’s Banal Zone isn’t about primary experience (implying that art should be about primary experience). The rest of his criticism is a tautological argument that implies that the only thing that matter are things that matter to him — he just says “I don’t like it, I don’t care.”
    – Mike

    Originality and borrowed language vs new language: Australian aboriginal artists in the dream state use a language developed commonly and passed on to them, but use it to express themselves. The guy speaking (sorry don’t know his name) said he was speaking in a language nominally known as English, but were we the listeners focusing more on that language or on his self-expression within it?
    —-> When being confined to a borrowed language, is it possible to have any thoughts that can’t be expressed within that language? In other words, it’s not a problem of delivery of novel expression wanting to take communicative form, it’s a problem of generation of novel ideas that might necessitate a new language of expression. (Blake)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *