Failing By Faction: How Diverse Are Internet Communities?

by Paddy Johnson on September 2, 2010 · 86 comments Opinion

For those who have about an hour to kill, the Dave Hickey lecture above is worth a gander both for his ideas on the development of art viewing, and his thoughts on the Internet. To begin, Hickey describes the American art discourse as informed by a conflict between ideas proffered by the 15th century church — that the existence of an image needed to be validated by god — and Paganism, which at its heart is about imbuing objects with power. As such, the prevailing belief in the US that works of art need to be validated finds its roots in religion.

I’d suggest this is a simplification of America’s relationship with art though Hickey adds to a little to his thesis as he goes on. “Stupid money” — that which supports sameness and mediocrity because it knows no better — is a thorn in the side of the artist who wishes to challenge the status quo, he tells us.  This leads to the idea that engaging in commerce is an object’s validation in the United States, though Hickey never explicitly makes this generalization.

The most severe criticism of American cultures offered comes near the end of Hickey’s talk though by this point he’s barely talking about art. Now the subject is validation within dysfunctional communities, and the writer unleashes on the Internet:

We are at a point now where the primary benison of this democracy is being challenged. I refer you to federalist ten James Madison. Madison’s great insight was that small republics always fail by faction. Athens fails by faction, Rome fails by faction. What Madison understood was that the sheer size and distribution of a culture across the American Continent could not fail by faction. There were regional interests, there were local interests, there were local religions, it was splintered. Or it was, until we had the Internet. Now we can fail by faction. Now motorcycle gangs have websites, couture has websites, so we reorganize ourselves into a nasty little mediterranean republic that will collapse of its own organization. And it’s all communitaze, because what we have done is turned the city, the vast city of the world into a village. And if it’s anything culture needs it’s not a village. Have you ever lived in a village? Where the smartest person cleans the sewers, have you ever lived in a village where the biggest business man runs the harley shop. Have you ever lived in a village in which your neighbors go through your garbage every night to see how much you’re drinking?…So what I’m saying is that at this moment, when the organization of American culture is collapsing through shear faction and so when the vast republic of complex statistical distribution that James Madison imagined is being run by Rush Limbaugh and people of even more virtue perhaps we might just leave culture alone and let people people run it themselves and try to fix a cure for this problem.

Long monologue short: communities are healthy when they are diverse, and the internet not only promotes sameness, but has anyone and everyone performing menial tasks. There’s some truth to this even if the latter isn’t typically cast in a negative light. Interestingly, yesterday I spoke with Tomorrow Museum’s Joanne McNeil about how many community based websites are now finding themselves crippled under their weight communities. Like Hickey’s village, websites like Threadless and etsy spend large sums of money on community moderaters, the loudest voices within those crowds often receiving the most attention regardless of the merit of their opinions. (See also: Jerry Saltz’s facebook page.) In this light Facebook’s much criticized stance that users need to be told what they want, may have its advantages.

{ 86 comments }

tom moody September 3, 2010 at 12:03 am

What Madison understood was that the sheer size and distribution of a culture across the American Continent could not fail by faction. There were regional interests, there were local interests, there were local religions, it was splintered. Or it was, until we had the…Civil War. (The one in the 1860s that killed 600,000 people.)

tom moody September 2, 2010 at 8:03 pm

What Madison understood was that the sheer size and distribution of a culture across the American Continent could not fail by faction. There were regional interests, there were local interests, there were local religions, it was splintered. Or it was, until we had the…Civil War. (The one in the 1860s that killed 600,000 people.)

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 2:40 am

So sheer size and distribution of a culture produce instability? Canada didn’t go through a civil war and it’s got size and distribution in spades (though not population density).

I guess my feeling on Hickey with regards to his thoughts on Internet communities is that he’d get a little farther if he didn’t work in such generalities.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 2:40 am

So sheer size and distribution of a culture produce instability? Canada didn’t go through a civil war and it’s got size and distribution in spades (though not population density).

I guess my feeling on Hickey with regards to his thoughts on Internet communities is that he’d get a little farther if he didn’t work in such generalities.

Art Fag City September 2, 2010 at 10:40 pm

So sheer size and distribution of a culture produce instability? Canada didn’t go through a civil war and it’s got size and distribution in spades (though not population density).

I guess my feeling on Hickey with regards to his thoughts on Internet communities is that he’d get a little farther if he didn’t work in such generalities.

Angela September 3, 2010 at 3:58 am

I have to say that I enjoyed his speech. It was filled with chin bleeds and wit. However, there was a definite undercurrent of misogyny that I found very disturbing. He lines up the decline of art in America with the beginning of the women’s movement in the early 1970s. I’m happy for Smithsonian patrons that Linda Nochlin was coming next.

sally September 3, 2010 at 4:18 pm

I’m really glad you mention the misogyny, Angela. We had a somewhat heated discussion about it on simpleposie back in May. I thought it was so bad that I really couldn’t buy into much of anything else he was saying. (Although I did grow up in a village, and I don’t want to live in a village again.)

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 5:18 pm

Wow that’s a fantastic thread. Thanks for pointing it out!

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 5:18 pm

Wow that’s a fantastic thread. Thanks for pointing it out!

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 5:18 pm

Wow that’s a fantastic thread. Thanks for pointing it out!

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 5:18 pm

Wow that’s a fantastic thread. Thanks for pointing it out!

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 5:18 pm

Wow that’s a fantastic thread. Thanks for pointing it out!

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 5:18 pm

Wow that’s a fantastic thread. Thanks for pointing it out!

sally September 3, 2010 at 5:31 pm

J at simpleposie is one powerful intellect – makes for scary/fun debate.

Angela September 4, 2010 at 4:15 am

My favorite part of the thread:
“I wish he’d just come right out and openly attacked feminism, rather than coddling along his audience in an erasure of Feminist history with value-loaded side comments about the foolishness of potlucks and the obstetric nature of creativity. That’s creepy.”

sally September 3, 2010 at 5:31 pm

J at simpleposie is one powerful intellect – makes for scary/fun debate.

sally September 3, 2010 at 5:31 pm

J at simpleposie is one powerful intellect – makes for scary/fun debate.

sally September 3, 2010 at 5:31 pm

J at simpleposie is one powerful intellect – makes for scary/fun debate.

sally September 3, 2010 at 5:31 pm

J at simpleposie is one powerful intellect – makes for scary/fun debate.

sally September 3, 2010 at 5:31 pm

J at simpleposie is one powerful intellect – makes for scary/fun debate.

sally September 3, 2010 at 5:31 pm

J at simpleposie is one powerful intellect – makes for scary/fun debate.

sally September 3, 2010 at 5:31 pm

J at simpleposie is one powerful intellect – makes for scary/fun debate.

sally September 3, 2010 at 5:31 pm

J at simpleposie is one powerful intellect – makes for scary/fun debate.

Angela September 2, 2010 at 11:58 pm

I have to say that I enjoyed his speech. It was filled with chin bleeds and wit. However, there was a definite undercurrent of misogyny that I found very disturbing. He lines up the decline of art in America with the beginning of the women’s movement in the early 1970s. I’m happy for Smithsonian patrons that Linda Nochlin was coming next.

sally September 3, 2010 at 12:18 pm

I’m really glad you mention the misogyny, Angela. We had a somewhat heated discussion about it on simpleposie back in May. I thought it was so bad that I really couldn’t buy into much of anything else he was saying. (Although I did grow up in a village, and I don’t want to live in a village again.)

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 1:18 pm

Wow that’s a fantastic thread. Thanks for pointing it out!

sally September 3, 2010 at 1:31 pm

J at simpleposie is one powerful intellect – makes for scary/fun debate.

Angela September 4, 2010 at 12:15 am

My favorite part of the thread:
“I wish he’d just come right out and openly attacked feminism, rather than coddling along his audience in an erasure of Feminist history with value-loaded side comments about the foolishness of potlucks and the obstetric nature of creativity. That’s creepy.”

Howard Halle September 3, 2010 at 12:02 pm

Tom is absolutely right. What Hickey—who doesn’t seem to quite know his American history as well as he thinks he does—doesn’t get is that America was culturally factionalized at birth, between slave and free. As for Madison, I suspect that as someone in the thick of the compromise that wrote the famous three-quarter rule into the constitution, he might have been in denial, as like we to say today.

I’ve always found Hickey somewhat glib: A compelling writer prone to sweeping generalizations that sound great, but fall apart under closer scrutiny.

Howard Halle September 3, 2010 at 12:02 pm

Tom is absolutely right. What Hickey—who doesn’t seem to quite know his American history as well as he thinks he does—doesn’t get is that America was culturally factionalized at birth, between slave and free. As for Madison, I suspect that as someone in the thick of the compromise that wrote the famous three-quarter rule into the constitution, he might have been in denial, as like we to say today.

I’ve always found Hickey somewhat glib: A compelling writer prone to sweeping generalizations that sound great, but fall apart under closer scrutiny.

Howard Halle September 3, 2010 at 8:02 am

Tom is absolutely right. What Hickey—who doesn’t seem to quite know his American history as well as he thinks he does—doesn’t get is that America was culturally factionalized at birth, between slave and free. As for Madison, I suspect that as someone in the thick of the compromise that wrote the famous three-quarter rule into the constitution, he might have been in denial, as like we to say today.

I’ve always found Hickey somewhat glib: A compelling writer prone to sweeping generalizations that sound great, but fall apart under closer scrutiny.

Molly Lambert September 3, 2010 at 1:10 pm

culture has always been organized around memes, good ideas inspire bad copies, the internet just accelerates and amplifies the process. there have always been one hit wonders and mediocre trends, they just burn brighter and faster on the internet. Hickey, like many older people who came up the old way, does not wish to deal with the reality of the younger generation coming for him in a medium that he finds crass.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 1:49 pm

Where does he say he finds the medium crass? I think that may just be an assumption. Also, while Hickey is 71, and would likely be the oldest commentor on the blog should he leave a comment, I don’t agree with the old vs new breakdown. The comment culture on this blog is such that a sweeping generalization is likely to be picked a part, but the people who participate are all different ages many of whom grew up with the “old way”, (I assume this just means pre-internet).

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 1:49 pm

Where does he say he finds the medium crass? I think that may just be an assumption. Also, while Hickey is 71, and would likely be the oldest commentor on the blog should he leave a comment, I don’t agree with the old vs new breakdown. The comment culture on this blog is such that a sweeping generalization is likely to be picked a part, but the people who participate are all different ages many of whom grew up with the “old way”, (I assume this just means pre-internet).

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 1:49 pm

Where does he say he finds the medium crass? I think that may just be an assumption. Also, while Hickey is 71, and would likely be the oldest commentor on the blog should he leave a comment, I don’t agree with the old vs new breakdown. The comment culture on this blog is such that a sweeping generalization is likely to be picked a part, but the people who participate are all different ages many of whom grew up with the “old way”, (I assume this just means pre-internet).

Dorian Nisinsin September 3, 2010 at 2:51 pm

Just a thought. You do not have to be very old to be pre-internet.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 3:14 pm

Well, this is my point. I’m not that old, and my teenage years were (mostly) pre-internet. I believe there was some nascent version of ICQ around and used by Universities, but I’d only heard about it.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 3:14 pm

Well, this is my point. I’m not that old, and my teenage years were (mostly) pre-internet. I believe there was some nascent version of ICQ around and used by Universities, but I’d only heard about it.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 3:14 pm

Well, this is my point. I’m not that old, and my teenage years were (mostly) pre-internet. I believe there was some nascent version of ICQ around and used by Universities, but I’d only heard about it.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 3:14 pm

Well, this is my point. I’m not that old, and my teenage years were (mostly) pre-internet. I believe there was some nascent version of ICQ around and used by Universities, but I’d only heard about it.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 3:14 pm

Well, this is my point. I’m not that old, and my teenage years were (mostly) pre-internet. I believe there was some nascent version of ICQ around and used by Universities, but I’d only heard about it.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 3:14 pm

Well, this is my point. I’m not that old, and my teenage years were (mostly) pre-internet. I believe there was some nascent version of ICQ around and used by Universities, but I’d only heard about it.

Dorian Nisinsin September 3, 2010 at 2:51 pm

Just a thought. You do not have to be very old to be pre-internet.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 1:49 pm

Where does he say he finds the medium crass? I think that may just be an assumption. Also, while Hickey is 71, and would likely be the oldest commentor on the blog should he leave a comment, I don’t agree with the old vs new breakdown. The comment culture on this blog is such that a sweeping generalization is likely to be picked a part, but the people who participate are all different ages many of whom grew up with the “old way”, (I assume this just means pre-internet).

Molly Lambert September 3, 2010 at 9:10 am

culture has always been organized around memes, good ideas inspire bad copies, the internet just accelerates and amplifies the process. there have always been one hit wonders and mediocre trends, they just burn brighter and faster on the internet. Hickey, like many older people who came up the old way, does not wish to deal with the reality of the younger generation coming for him in a medium that he finds crass.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 9:49 am

Where does he say he finds the medium crass? I think that may just be an assumption. Also, while Hickey is 71, and would likely be the oldest commentor on the blog should he leave a comment, I don’t agree with the old vs new breakdown. The comment culture on this blog is such that a sweeping generalization is likely to be picked a part, but the people who participate are all different ages many of whom grew up with the “old way”, (I assume this just means pre-internet).

Dorian Nisinsin September 3, 2010 at 10:51 am

Just a thought. You do not have to be very old to be pre-internet.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 11:14 am

Well, this is my point. I’m not that old, and my teenage years were (mostly) pre-internet. I believe there was some nascent version of ICQ around and used by Universities, but I’d only heard about it.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 1:40 pm

@Tom Howard and Angela — Points granted. The sweeping generalization problem is really too bad, because it’s not just that what he says sounds okay they seem wildly compelling and convincing.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 1:40 pm

@Tom Howard and Angela — Points granted. The sweeping generalization problem is really too bad, because it’s not just that what he says sounds okay they seem wildly compelling and convincing.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 1:40 pm

@Tom Howard and Angela — Points granted. The sweeping generalization problem is really too bad, because it’s not just that what he says sounds okay they seem wildly compelling and convincing.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 1:40 pm

@Tom Howard and Angela — Points granted. The sweeping generalization problem is really too bad, because it’s not just that what he says sounds okay they seem wildly compelling and convincing.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 1:40 pm

@Tom Howard and Angela — Points granted. The sweeping generalization problem is really too bad, because it’s not just that what he says sounds okay they seem wildly compelling and convincing.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 1:40 pm

@Tom Howard and Angela — Points granted. The sweeping generalization problem is really too bad, because it’s not just that what he says sounds okay they seem wildly compelling and convincing.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 1:40 pm

@Tom Howard and Angela — Points granted. The sweeping generalization problem is really too bad, because it’s not just that what he says sounds okay they seem wildly compelling and convincing.

Art Fag City September 3, 2010 at 9:40 am

@Tom Howard and Angela — Points granted. The sweeping generalization problem is really too bad, because it’s not just that what he says sounds okay they seem wildly compelling and convincing.

dan September 3, 2010 at 7:49 pm

No, I don’t “understand that”.

dan September 3, 2010 at 3:49 pm

No, I don’t “understand that”.

erika September 3, 2010 at 9:06 pm

dear bravo network,
please cast him on the next season of WANGA!

erika September 3, 2010 at 9:06 pm

dear bravo network,
please cast him on the next season of WANGA!

erika September 3, 2010 at 9:06 pm

dear bravo network,
please cast him on the next season of WANGA!

erika September 3, 2010 at 9:06 pm

dear bravo network,
please cast him on the next season of WANGA!

erika September 3, 2010 at 9:06 pm

dear bravo network,
please cast him on the next season of WANGA!

erika September 3, 2010 at 9:06 pm

dear bravo network,
please cast him on the next season of WANGA!

erika September 3, 2010 at 9:06 pm

dear bravo network,
please cast him on the next season of WANGA!

erika September 3, 2010 at 9:06 pm

dear bravo network,
please cast him on the next season of WANGA!

erika September 3, 2010 at 5:06 pm

dear bravo network,
please cast him on the next season of WANGA!

tom moody September 4, 2010 at 12:55 pm

On the topic of Hickey’s glibness and use of loaded generalities such as “the foolishness of potlucks and the obstetric nature of creativity,” here’s a passage from an interview he did around the time of his book The Invisible Dragon ( http://bombsite.com/issues/51/articles/1845 ) that captures his self-aggrandizement-disguised-as-aw-shucks-old-boy-Texan modesty and reluctance to talk about any actual, specific artworks–it’s always easier to create fanciful fake ones that others think they might have seen (he mentions these same “sex toys” in Invisible Dragon):

“I found myself going to the Kimbell Art Museum all the time, not out of any reactionary desire to return to the grand tradition of European painting, but just because I could. I could walk in there every day and look at those big Bouchers, at Caravaggio, Velazquez, Fra Angelico and they contained so much, so much raw information that I could keep on looking, day after day. It was ‘slow art,’ in other words, and it beat the hell out of walking into a chic gallery, seeing a bunch of sex toys in velvet bags hung from plant hangers with French titles on brass plates.”

You know, those sex toys in velvet bags hung from plant hangers with French titles on brass plates. I hate them too.

tom moody September 4, 2010 at 12:55 pm

On the topic of Hickey’s glibness and use of loaded generalities such as “the foolishness of potlucks and the obstetric nature of creativity,” here’s a passage from an interview he did around the time of his book The Invisible Dragon ( http://bombsite.com/issues/51/articles/1845 ) that captures his self-aggrandizement-disguised-as-aw-shucks-old-boy-Texan modesty and reluctance to talk about any actual, specific artworks–it’s always easier to create fanciful fake ones that others think they might have seen (he mentions these same “sex toys” in Invisible Dragon):

“I found myself going to the Kimbell Art Museum all the time, not out of any reactionary desire to return to the grand tradition of European painting, but just because I could. I could walk in there every day and look at those big Bouchers, at Caravaggio, Velazquez, Fra Angelico and they contained so much, so much raw information that I could keep on looking, day after day. It was ‘slow art,’ in other words, and it beat the hell out of walking into a chic gallery, seeing a bunch of sex toys in velvet bags hung from plant hangers with French titles on brass plates.”

You know, those sex toys in velvet bags hung from plant hangers with French titles on brass plates. I hate them too.

tom moody September 4, 2010 at 12:55 pm

On the topic of Hickey’s glibness and use of loaded generalities such as “the foolishness of potlucks and the obstetric nature of creativity,” here’s a passage from an interview he did around the time of his book The Invisible Dragon ( http://bombsite.com/issues/51/articles/1845 ) that captures his self-aggrandizement-disguised-as-aw-shucks-old-boy-Texan modesty and reluctance to talk about any actual, specific artworks–it’s always easier to create fanciful fake ones that others think they might have seen (he mentions these same “sex toys” in Invisible Dragon):

“I found myself going to the Kimbell Art Museum all the time, not out of any reactionary desire to return to the grand tradition of European painting, but just because I could. I could walk in there every day and look at those big Bouchers, at Caravaggio, Velazquez, Fra Angelico and they contained so much, so much raw information that I could keep on looking, day after day. It was ‘slow art,’ in other words, and it beat the hell out of walking into a chic gallery, seeing a bunch of sex toys in velvet bags hung from plant hangers with French titles on brass plates.”

You know, those sex toys in velvet bags hung from plant hangers with French titles on brass plates. I hate them too.

tom moody September 4, 2010 at 12:55 pm

On the topic of Hickey’s glibness and use of loaded generalities such as “the foolishness of potlucks and the obstetric nature of creativity,” here’s a passage from an interview he did around the time of his book The Invisible Dragon ( http://bombsite.com/issues/51/articles/1845 ) that captures his self-aggrandizement-disguised-as-aw-shucks-old-boy-Texan modesty and reluctance to talk about any actual, specific artworks–it’s always easier to create fanciful fake ones that others think they might have seen (he mentions these same “sex toys” in Invisible Dragon):

“I found myself going to the Kimbell Art Museum all the time, not out of any reactionary desire to return to the grand tradition of European painting, but just because I could. I could walk in there every day and look at those big Bouchers, at Caravaggio, Velazquez, Fra Angelico and they contained so much, so much raw information that I could keep on looking, day after day. It was ‘slow art,’ in other words, and it beat the hell out of walking into a chic gallery, seeing a bunch of sex toys in velvet bags hung from plant hangers with French titles on brass plates.”

You know, those sex toys in velvet bags hung from plant hangers with French titles on brass plates. I hate them too.

tom moody September 4, 2010 at 12:55 pm

On the topic of Hickey’s glibness and use of loaded generalities such as “the foolishness of potlucks and the obstetric nature of creativity,” here’s a passage from an interview he did around the time of his book The Invisible Dragon ( http://bombsite.com/issues/51/articles/1845 ) that captures his self-aggrandizement-disguised-as-aw-shucks-old-boy-Texan modesty and reluctance to talk about any actual, specific artworks–it’s always easier to create fanciful fake ones that others think they might have seen (he mentions these same “sex toys” in Invisible Dragon):

“I found myself going to the Kimbell Art Museum all the time, not out of any reactionary desire to return to the grand tradition of European painting, but just because I could. I could walk in there every day and look at those big Bouchers, at Caravaggio, Velazquez, Fra Angelico and they contained so much, so much raw information that I could keep on looking, day after day. It was ‘slow art,’ in other words, and it beat the hell out of walking into a chic gallery, seeing a bunch of sex toys in velvet bags hung from plant hangers with French titles on brass plates.”

You know, those sex toys in velvet bags hung from plant hangers with French titles on brass plates. I hate them too.

tom moody September 4, 2010 at 12:55 pm

On the topic of Hickey’s glibness and use of loaded generalities such as “the foolishness of potlucks and the obstetric nature of creativity,” here’s a passage from an interview he did around the time of his book The Invisible Dragon ( http://bombsite.com/issues/51/articles/1845 ) that captures his self-aggrandizement-disguised-as-aw-shucks-old-boy-Texan modesty and reluctance to talk about any actual, specific artworks–it’s always easier to create fanciful fake ones that others think they might have seen (he mentions these same “sex toys” in Invisible Dragon):

“I found myself going to the Kimbell Art Museum all the time, not out of any reactionary desire to return to the grand tradition of European painting, but just because I could. I could walk in there every day and look at those big Bouchers, at Caravaggio, Velazquez, Fra Angelico and they contained so much, so much raw information that I could keep on looking, day after day. It was ‘slow art,’ in other words, and it beat the hell out of walking into a chic gallery, seeing a bunch of sex toys in velvet bags hung from plant hangers with French titles on brass plates.”

You know, those sex toys in velvet bags hung from plant hangers with French titles on brass plates. I hate them too.

tom moody September 4, 2010 at 12:55 pm

On the topic of Hickey’s glibness and use of loaded generalities such as “the foolishness of potlucks and the obstetric nature of creativity,” here’s a passage from an interview he did around the time of his book The Invisible Dragon ( http://bombsite.com/issues/51/articles/1845 ) that captures his self-aggrandizement-disguised-as-aw-shucks-old-boy-Texan modesty and reluctance to talk about any actual, specific artworks–it’s always easier to create fanciful fake ones that others think they might have seen (he mentions these same “sex toys” in Invisible Dragon):

“I found myself going to the Kimbell Art Museum all the time, not out of any reactionary desire to return to the grand tradition of European painting, but just because I could. I could walk in there every day and look at those big Bouchers, at Caravaggio, Velazquez, Fra Angelico and they contained so much, so much raw information that I could keep on looking, day after day. It was ‘slow art,’ in other words, and it beat the hell out of walking into a chic gallery, seeing a bunch of sex toys in velvet bags hung from plant hangers with French titles on brass plates.”

You know, those sex toys in velvet bags hung from plant hangers with French titles on brass plates. I hate them too.

tom moody September 4, 2010 at 8:55 am

On the topic of Hickey’s glibness and use of loaded generalities such as “the foolishness of potlucks and the obstetric nature of creativity,” here’s a passage from an interview he did around the time of his book The Invisible Dragon ( http://bombsite.com/issues/51/articles/1845 ) that captures his self-aggrandizement-disguised-as-aw-shucks-old-boy-Texan modesty and reluctance to talk about any actual, specific artworks–it’s always easier to create fanciful fake ones that others think they might have seen (he mentions these same “sex toys” in Invisible Dragon):

“I found myself going to the Kimbell Art Museum all the time, not out of any reactionary desire to return to the grand tradition of European painting, but just because I could. I could walk in there every day and look at those big Bouchers, at Caravaggio, Velazquez, Fra Angelico and they contained so much, so much raw information that I could keep on looking, day after day. It was ‘slow art,’ in other words, and it beat the hell out of walking into a chic gallery, seeing a bunch of sex toys in velvet bags hung from plant hangers with French titles on brass plates.”

You know, those sex toys in velvet bags hung from plant hangers with French titles on brass plates. I hate them too.

tom moody September 4, 2010 at 2:21 pm

Whoops, should have been clearer, the phrase “the foolishness of potlucks and the obstetric nature of creativity” is Sally McKay’s, from the simpleposie thread. Here’s the relevant part:

“The Cynthia & Raoul thing comes up after he has laid out his history of American art that begins ‘brilliantly’ post WWII with ‘confident, tough-minded, thick skinned private citizens’ creating ‘dominant objects.’ But this great American art world gets co-opted by institutional interests who think we should ‘forget about objects and focus on people.’ No mention of the feminist history of performance and embodied, time-based works that intentionally set out to challenge ‘dominant objects.’ No mention of the confidence, thick-skin and tough mindedness of the artists of the 60s and 70s who thought dominant objects were too dominant and struggled to reach audiences. Instead, ‘around 1974 the art world became known as the art community because art didn’t matter, people did. People began having potluck dinners in Soho with kids tumbling on the floor. [elicits scornful laugh from audience] The whole place began to feel like a village because even though every one of these new ideas was wrong, stupid, destructive, they triumphed because they were quintessentially mushy, average American ideas.’ And he really plays his hand with ‘We encourage creativity because creativity is a business idea. Actually, it’s an obstetric idea, and not an art idea at all.’ I’m sure Hickey is capable of treating female artists with respect, but the history he’s telling here is flat-out misogynistic.”

tom moody September 4, 2010 at 10:21 am

Whoops, should have been clearer, the phrase “the foolishness of potlucks and the obstetric nature of creativity” is Sally McKay’s, from the simpleposie thread. Here’s the relevant part:

“The Cynthia & Raoul thing comes up after he has laid out his history of American art that begins ‘brilliantly’ post WWII with ‘confident, tough-minded, thick skinned private citizens’ creating ‘dominant objects.’ But this great American art world gets co-opted by institutional interests who think we should ‘forget about objects and focus on people.’ No mention of the feminist history of performance and embodied, time-based works that intentionally set out to challenge ‘dominant objects.’ No mention of the confidence, thick-skin and tough mindedness of the artists of the 60s and 70s who thought dominant objects were too dominant and struggled to reach audiences. Instead, ‘around 1974 the art world became known as the art community because art didn’t matter, people did. People began having potluck dinners in Soho with kids tumbling on the floor. [elicits scornful laugh from audience] The whole place began to feel like a village because even though every one of these new ideas was wrong, stupid, destructive, they triumphed because they were quintessentially mushy, average American ideas.’ And he really plays his hand with ‘We encourage creativity because creativity is a business idea. Actually, it’s an obstetric idea, and not an art idea at all.’ I’m sure Hickey is capable of treating female artists with respect, but the history he’s telling here is flat-out misogynistic.”

Judith Braun September 4, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Watched the lecture. Thanks for posting AFC. Interesting. Better to read him then to watch him though. I agree with the view of his generalizing, drawing me in, but then when he asks, which he often does, if I am “understanding what he’s saying”, I think it’s because he knows he has come to a soft spot in his argument…and then when he asks if I understand it insinuates that of course I should, not only understand but agree! I think it’s a speaking tactic…I found it annoying and began to rebel, and then get sleepy. Will read the simpleposie thread soon. Just wanted to chime in that I’m following this thread.

Judith Braun September 4, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Watched the lecture. Thanks for posting AFC. Interesting. Better to read him then to watch him though. I agree with the view of his generalizing, drawing me in, but then when he asks, which he often does, if I am “understanding what he’s saying”, I think it’s because he knows he has come to a soft spot in his argument…and then when he asks if I understand it insinuates that of course I should, not only understand but agree! I think it’s a speaking tactic…I found it annoying and began to rebel, and then get sleepy. Will read the simpleposie thread soon. Just wanted to chime in that I’m following this thread.

Judith Braun September 4, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Watched the lecture. Thanks for posting AFC. Interesting. Better to read him then to watch him though. I agree with the view of his generalizing, drawing me in, but then when he asks, which he often does, if I am “understanding what he’s saying”, I think it’s because he knows he has come to a soft spot in his argument…and then when he asks if I understand it insinuates that of course I should, not only understand but agree! I think it’s a speaking tactic…I found it annoying and began to rebel, and then get sleepy. Will read the simpleposie thread soon. Just wanted to chime in that I’m following this thread.

Judith Braun September 4, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Watched the lecture. Thanks for posting AFC. Interesting. Better to read him then to watch him though. I agree with the view of his generalizing, drawing me in, but then when he asks, which he often does, if I am “understanding what he’s saying”, I think it’s because he knows he has come to a soft spot in his argument…and then when he asks if I understand it insinuates that of course I should, not only understand but agree! I think it’s a speaking tactic…I found it annoying and began to rebel, and then get sleepy. Will read the simpleposie thread soon. Just wanted to chime in that I’m following this thread.

Judith Braun September 4, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Watched the lecture. Thanks for posting AFC. Interesting. Better to read him then to watch him though. I agree with the view of his generalizing, drawing me in, but then when he asks, which he often does, if I am “understanding what he’s saying”, I think it’s because he knows he has come to a soft spot in his argument…and then when he asks if I understand it insinuates that of course I should, not only understand but agree! I think it’s a speaking tactic…I found it annoying and began to rebel, and then get sleepy. Will read the simpleposie thread soon. Just wanted to chime in that I’m following this thread.

Judith Braun September 4, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Watched the lecture. Thanks for posting AFC. Interesting. Better to read him then to watch him though. I agree with the view of his generalizing, drawing me in, but then when he asks, which he often does, if I am “understanding what he’s saying”, I think it’s because he knows he has come to a soft spot in his argument…and then when he asks if I understand it insinuates that of course I should, not only understand but agree! I think it’s a speaking tactic…I found it annoying and began to rebel, and then get sleepy. Will read the simpleposie thread soon. Just wanted to chime in that I’m following this thread.

Judith Braun September 4, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Watched the lecture. Thanks for posting AFC. Interesting. Better to read him then to watch him though. I agree with the view of his generalizing, drawing me in, but then when he asks, which he often does, if I am “understanding what he’s saying”, I think it’s because he knows he has come to a soft spot in his argument…and then when he asks if I understand it insinuates that of course I should, not only understand but agree! I think it’s a speaking tactic…I found it annoying and began to rebel, and then get sleepy. Will read the simpleposie thread soon. Just wanted to chime in that I’m following this thread.

Judith Braun September 4, 2010 at 10:12 pm

Watched the lecture. Thanks for posting AFC. Interesting. Better to read him then to watch him though. I agree with the view of his generalizing, drawing me in, but then when he asks, which he often does, if I am “understanding what he’s saying”, I think it’s because he knows he has come to a soft spot in his argument…and then when he asks if I understand it insinuates that of course I should, not only understand but agree! I think it’s a speaking tactic…I found it annoying and began to rebel, and then get sleepy. Will read the simpleposie thread soon. Just wanted to chime in that I’m following this thread.

Judith Braun September 4, 2010 at 6:12 pm

Watched the lecture. Thanks for posting AFC. Interesting. Better to read him then to watch him though. I agree with the view of his generalizing, drawing me in, but then when he asks, which he often does, if I am “understanding what he’s saying”, I think it’s because he knows he has come to a soft spot in his argument…and then when he asks if I understand it insinuates that of course I should, not only understand but agree! I think it’s a speaking tactic…I found it annoying and began to rebel, and then get sleepy. Will read the simpleposie thread soon. Just wanted to chime in that I’m following this thread.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: