iPod blamed for stealing the thunder from contemporary art
By Darren Murph 
posted June 15th 2007 6:36AM
posted June 15th 2007 6:36AM
posted June 15th 2007 6:36AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Sounds like a broke artist looking to get his name in the paper in hopes of landing an exhibit.
He would be singing a different tune if there was a "Hockney iPod" model.
I guarentee it.
Ch-Ching.
Apple's iPod also stole the thunder from Creative Labs, who invented the MP3 player's GUI technology
Consider for moment Mr Hockney's history and anti-associative perspective as an artist. Or to put it this way, enter a realm of willing suspension of disbelief, and listen to what the man could be saying and how what he's saying may be for everyone's collective good. This requires patience, the very thing an ipod was designed to extinguish.
To start, I think to sound off with "David Hockney is a fuck" and that "contemporary art is a joke" only proves David's point to me all the more. The ipod is a device, but more than that it is an instrument of control. You get to pick your music, you can buy as much as you want, when you want it, and if you want to watch tv all day, you can. Great for all of us? Yes and no?
An ipod can do nothing but teach you to respond, react, and be a great audience member in society. A tool. The music may drive you to go into your basement and create (you could do that before the ipod was around), but most likely you'll just go buy more ideas that other people created and have made nothing for yourself. The ipod is to shut out the world and focus on yourself- your personal soundtrack to life.
Now consider Contemporary art. You HAVE to participate. You have to think. You have to look, look, and look again deeper than the surface and possibly be faced with a different outcome than you expected. You have to be patient. You have to get up off your arse and walk to the Museum, Park, etc, to see the work. You might even have to read - god help us.
So maybe in contrasting the nature of these two things, David's argument doesn't seem "stupid". Maybe he's not LITERALLY saying the IPOD is bad. Maybe their is some figurative language such as his reference to the hoards of people on the bus tuned out to their surrondings and daydreaming about themselves. If you don't have an Ipod with you, you might have to listen to the sound of the engine on the bus, or the homeless person next to you and in doing so you might create something new from life that enhances the human experience. Or you could just listen until you get bored, and then go home and buy more music to listen to and get bored again a couple days later.
When I hear an artist say their is a lack of appreciation for the line, or for form, I hear him talking more about the lack of attention to detail, the pursuit of things beyond your preconcieved notions about life or the lack of pursuit in general.
Well, you're close to a coherent thought, but then, close only counts in two circumstances, and this ain't one of 'em.
So let's start with the obvious - the implicit suggestion that visual art and aural art are somehow of different value. Basically, you're suggesting that if I'm listening to Shostakovich, Bach, et al. on the bus, I'm missing out on what, exactly? The jack brake? The incoherent ramblings of the person who needs psychiatric help? Is there really nothing that I could find in music, or audiobook, or whatever I might be listening to that wouldn't be more worthy than the white noise of the world?
Second, having spent a fair amount of time around contemporary visit art, let's be clear and honest. Much like any other form of art, the vast majority is mediocre at best. Patience is required, certainly, but all too often it's wasted on what is junk, or, at best, the merely competent.
Finally, the point you're ultimately trying to make, and really, Hockney probably is as well, in your own less than competent way, is this: art has changed. Completely. And that's because society has. Not because of the iPod, or "digital revolution," or anything else that people and pundits love to blather on about. Art has changed because of a fundmental shift in who consumes it. Art is no longer commissioned by an exclusive elite for their own enjoyment. The Emperor's taste doesn't determine what's created anymore, visually, aurally, or in any other manner.
A more egalitarian society has resulted in a revolution in art; one that began some time ago, and is far from completed. The problem with Hockney's critique is that it's wrong - we are in extraordinarily visual age, one that's almost overwhelming, in fact. We are constantly bombarded with new visual information. What Hockney probably means is that most of that content isn't particularly worthy of our time. In that, there's a good deal of truth.
The tension between the egalitarian in society and the push for an elitist excellence in art is one of the main touchpoints of the best that exists in contemporary art. That conflict will be long-lasting. It has nothing to do with the iPod, or fashion. The biggest mistake here is simple - if Hockney wants to make a statement, he ought to do so with the brush, because he apparently can't with words.
You're both putting words in Hockney's mouth. And the idea that the iPOd is creating a more egalitarian world, at least outside of music distribution, is bullshit. 99% of us use our iPod the same way Walkmans were used thirty years ago.
Hockney's saying that the iPod is becoming the opiate of the people. More than merely providing a soundtrack for your commute or drowning out noise, your iPod is dulling your experience with the world.
It's not an unintelligent thought. When you lose your hearing, they say your other senses become more acute. Could it be that over-stimulating your hearing could do the opposite?
I cant believe that guy accused other ppl of being badly dressed. What a tool. He looks like Mickey Mouse. I have an iPod but I dont use it much. I really dont understand why ppl pay thousands of dollars for "Art" that looks like it was made by a four year old. These so called artists are the biggest scam artists of this century. They say it is a graphical interpretation. I say they did some schrooms and busted out the finger paint.
Hey guys... Guess what? The iPod isn't the only freakin' PMP on the market, god damn...
Modern art is the biggest hoax of the 20th century.
http://www.artrenewal.org/
i think this guy may have found apple's next ad campaign; ipod as the canvas and snobbish people drooling over it.
Someone's always blaming technology for the decline of culture and society. First radio, then t.v., now portable media players.
People could just as easily blame photography for a declining interest in painting, or cinema for a lack of interest in the theater...oh wait they have. Maybe we should stop progress and innovation so people who already have money can't complain they're not getting as much as they used to.
This is just another case of an individual trying to create controversy, in order to gain publicity.