Having shunned and derided blogs, twitter and other such narcissistic mechanisms which enable us to burden the world with our personal views, blithely assuming it will be interested, I have found myself doing just that.
A while ago, my sister and I began to consider how dramatically art has changed over the centuries. Our conceptions of what art is, our expectations of what it should be and our justifications for our appreciation of it have been transformed. What of our approach to power and governance? Have our perceptions of what it means changed in any fundamental sense or are we all still walking to a tune similar to that we walked to fifty years ago?
In San Francisco in 1945 the UN Charter was signed and the UN was thrust into being. At the same time in New York the New York Vanguard was developing abstract impressionism, artists such as Barnett Newman and Jackson Pollock were in the process of breaking with the creative norms. If one was to compare the two and juxtapose the international global governance institutions and the development of ‘contemporary art’ what might be the result?
What can be done? What should be done? How can the balance be redressed? Should it be redressed? Is there a problem, what is it? It might be interesting to try and answer this question.
Everyone, allegedly, has an interest in issues related to how the world works, the question of who it is pulling the strings, of how one might get a specific string pulled, why something’s unfair and who’s it unfair too.
We thought we might try to find out, or at least talk about it. Hence the blog.
