<===Richard Kern
Out of context: Reply #60
- Started
- Last post
- 64 Responses
- balb0a0
What do you mean "lead to censorship"? This site is already "censored" (aka edited), and proud of it. It's not a totally open forum.
People waste a lot of energy looking for consistency in the editing. But sooner or later you realize that the editors, moderators, and participants are an opinionated bunch. And opinions (in my opinion) are a good thing.
As far as the art vs. porn thing is concerned...
It's not important whether the work fits today's definition of Porn or Art. The rules will change next week.
And it's not the medium that makes the artist. Doesn't matter if the artist uses a camera, a paintbrush, a burnt stick, or his/her genitals...
...It's the work. And the intent. And the message. And the context. And the audience. And the venue. And everyone else that made work before them.
These days artists design, designers illustrate, illustrators direct commercials, commercial directors make films, film directors paint. And so on.
The old definitions are dead. There's no reason to inhabit a predefined niche anymore. That's a really liberating thing. It allowed me to segue from Architecture into Graphic Design into Web Design (with a few Gallery shows inbetween).
Think about this: Fine Art is affected by trend cycles just like everything else in consumer society. The fashion/ commerce/ art/porn/music machine are inextricably intertwined with capitalism and the need to "sell to survive". All are forms of entertainment/distraction for the bored masses.
Photogs like Noboyushi Araki, Larry Clark, Eric Kroll. Helmut Newton, and Terry Richardson (sisley) all excel at creating a sexualized fantasy world. And fantasex sells (duh).
Even though he's been around for years, Kern is now enjoying a renewed popularity because "transgressive art" is in vogue (i.e. in demand). He used to be an undergound fimmaker. But there was no huge demand for his work, and eventually everyone gets tired of creating work in a vacuum. It sucks to struggle. It makes sense that his career has veered into more "saleable" territory.
The bummer is that a lot of really beautiful compelling work by amazing people never gets out into the world simply because it won't sell. And it's really hard to survive as an Artist when you're making unsellable work. So if you think about it, we usually never get to see the "best" art. We get to see the "most marketable art".
BTW, great long-winded thread!
:)