Monday, April 6, 2009

Relevance

Wish You Were Here - trial shot for "A Book About Death" postcard project
(see "Text Messages from the Dead" on right)

The other night I'm at home trying to work through my
yoga routine. Difficult enough, but at the same time I'm
talking out loud, more to myself than my wife who is trying
to read. She points out that most practitioners are not letting
their minds wander. True, but I'm sitting tied in a knot wondering
"what is relevant"? I suppose this could be useless, maudlin or
even a dangerous thought for an artist. Except for the fact that
my art is in a fine place right now. I'm just making it; not
hesitating, over thinking, the ideas are flowing and I'm
along for the ride. The photo up top is one of my experiments
for a postcard I'm working on. Needs work, but at least I'm
in the studio butting my head against some ideas, so all is
well.

My Google result formula for mass relevancy


So, I think what's really on my mind is not what makes an artist
relevant but what makes an artist relevant to me. There are plenty of
widely recognized artists; artists that define what our understanding
of what art is or the next direction for art etc. that just haven't had
much influence on me or my work. I enjoy work by Warhol but I was
amazed that there were so many more Google results for him vs Johns
or Rauschenberg who I owe more to in understanding Pop Art. My
simple equation above doesn't do justice to those who theorize
relevancy algorithms or swarm theory. Still I have to wonder whether
the wikipedia effect isn't derailing our inner critic.

Post a Comment