I chose a piece by Brian Dillon titled, "Is F for Fake", of Frieze Magazine. In this article Dillon compares hack doctors to hack artist's. In this article he argues that being true to self in art, makes an artist. Charlatan's can be seen a pretender's in their trade. I have learned through my work to be passionate about what I do, and more importantly be true to myself and to my work. Dillon touches on the spectacle charlatan's create. He expresses charlatan's ability to dupe the public and laugh at their expense. Even if exposed they revel in the spectacle. It is hard to define a charlatan in modern times, often we project our own flaws onto others. One must not use a double standard, though one must also be vigilante in the entertainment they consume.
click here to read article->
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Making a work involves the invention of a process of presentation. In this kind of process, the image is an act. – definition of “Image” from the glossary of Nicolas Bourriaud, Relational Aesthetics
1 comment:
Brian - your post are okay as starts, but I'd like to hear more. Both are fine-ish, but they state one point in each, without discussing the ideas very much, or discussing the articles' ideas. Your discussion on the Dillon piece in particular. Is Dillon against the spectale charlatans create or does he enjoy it as spectacles? What is the comparison to hack doctors - that hack artist are just as dangerous? How does he define a "hack artist"? For that matter, how does he define "being true to your self"? Is there any fixed way, is there any formula?
All to say, I'd like to see more discussion from you here. This is a little thin, traffics in truisms rather than in any weighing of thoughts, discussing the article at hand. For the last post, I'll need to hear more from you in terms of the article, in terms of your discussion of the article.
Post a Comment