“there is inherent conflict between: commerce, information, entertainment.” 

Richard Serra’s “Television Delivers People” (1973) is an eerie take on the consumerist goals of television as mass media. The pairing of subversive messages about the nature of television with a scrolling blue background and muzak mimics the nature of subliminal messages and is mesmerizing to the viewer. I found myself unable to tear my eyes away, even as I felt my eyes almost burning from the extreme royal blue screen and bold white text. After the screening concluded, I wanted to learn more about Richard Serra and his work. I was interested to see that he works in multiple artistic mediums, not just video/performance art as I expected. I also read on Wikipedia about the various avenues outside of the art world that he used to make a living at various points during his life, which I thought was relevant to our class discussion today about the Situationist manifesto and their doctrine that members not rely on art as a form of income. I cannot claim to know that this is why Serra worked outside the industry, and it is very possible that he did this simply out of financial necessity, but I found myself thinking about this aspect of the Situationist mindset and why this would be something they would advocate for. Although the idea of being able to support oneself through one’s craft and doing something you love is enticing, what is the danger art being motivated by consumerist goals? Can art enact change within this sphere? Can one profit from art while still pushing the societal boundaries of what is normal and dominant? Or are we just stuck then in a cycle of regurgitating corporate values, as the “end product” of mass media?

Advertisements

2 responses »

  1. sonyajendoubi says:

    I think the notion that art can’t both profitable and revolutionary is an antiquated idea. It’s the same mentality that insinuates you can not have a job you love which pays you well, or a job that positively impacts the community which pays you well. It’s as if to say, for an artwork to have a social impact, the artist must also be struggling or else they would be unable to truly express emotion. I truly believe that it is possible to do both.

    Let us take for example the fashion show where the Black Lives Matter movement was showcased with impactful clothing. The fashion designer, an artist, will make a profit and has also made a powerful statement that the fashion industry can be multi-dimensional.

    If anything, I think we should value those that are able to be both more than when only one of the two is possible. Being able to handle both means that the artist is able to appeal to the consumer, which in art is often wealthy subjects, and somehow push the boundaries of their gaze and perspective. Such a balancing act is admirable.

  2. amihk says:

    I was reading back the blog posts and remembered how inspiring that video was. Its so interesting because that kind of video work will not be effective today because people could just change their channels or scroll through on their smartphone. Also what they say really made me think of what Stuart Hall says in his Social Production of news Article.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s