Video: Shedding The Utopian Moment

This article really challenges my beliefs as an artist and individual. I am going to start where Rosler comments on the the avant-garde Dada and surrealism movements. These movements that were created to break down some of the structure of the art world, were just accepted into the system as a new aesthetic while watering down the concept. This makes me think if any art or artist is able to be divorced from a commercial and academic art world. Can a message be strong enough to break out of the gallery walls?

Later in the article Pollock was commented on as becoming a media celebrity, which also changed the meaning of his art from an expression of motion into a commercial commodity.

The Kaprow quote also challenges me. As he states the lunar module is more art than any sculpture, or that the dialogue and beeps of the radio communication is better art than any electronic music piece. I kind of believe the statement in a way. The Lunar Module has had more impact on society, and its symbol for human perseverance has a stronger message than art in a gallery.

Then Rosler begins to attack Nam June Paik, saying,"... [he] has done all the bad and disrespectful things to television that the art world's collective imaginary might wish to do." I feel his practice of trying to break down the image and control of the TV had a strong conceptual base. Unfortunately, his work was consumed by a commercial market that learned to market the frenzied style of music and video. I feel like he was the infant video artist, who did everything he could to change the meaning of the TV and video. It was Paik's calling to do everything he could to the TV signal so I don't feel like his work was unsuccessful at all.

Anyway, its another article that makes me think about the role of the artist and their art in the world.