economically viable

"the 'everyday' needs and 'everyone' to live it or it makesno sense at all. more or less the only widespread common experience in the west these days is, for obvious reasons, shopping. But, as a communal pursuit, shopping is hopeless because our commodity selection defines us only by our individuality." Will bradley states in the article, ' The decline of the circus and the marching band is permanent and final' and he goes on further to state that 'Contemporary art never features in these representations because it is not a mass market commodity. By this i don't mean that it is not represented because it is not a part of most people's day to daylife(which it isn't), but that there is not the same kind of economic advantage to be gained by showing it that there is with c onservatories, WAP- enabled mobile phones, inflatable travel cushions or ready mixed pasta sauce." This is a dated article and is guilty of adhereing to the guilty comment of greenberg on the economic viability of minimalist sculpture in the face of trends of the current art flavor changing. The article was written in 2001 and since then we as a public who attend galleries or malls find contemporary works portrayed on ties, more and more postcards, the regular poster repro and can now even by stencils of the 'banksy' design allowing the buyer to make art like him DIY style. In the article Mr. Bradley describes a time where contemporary art doesn't challenge the 'everyday' adn describes the situations era as a blip in history. I reckon this is true because at the time the current market trends were unable to bring this ideology into their fold. With today's advances one can purchase artist designs as 'wallpaper' for their mobile phones. Graffitti, the last avante- garde, is now a common tool in marketing schemes. Anti- marketing film shorts are just as much a marketing tool as the traditional forms of commodity myth making. The pigs on the animal farm are in control. The accessibility of a contemporary art trend is based on teh economic return yeilded by a public subdued by the marketing schemes of the culture industry and the (once) high culture art world. Public monies, which had been for community service oriented programs and ones for art programs have consolidated to kill two birds with one stone. A way of saving face and saving money. It is the innate nature of the corporation to do something only if it is for the good of the company( ie the bottom line..their profits). Our contemporary art bradley suggests, ' Currently, teh 'problem of the everyday' is a very different one. Instead, of fighting the institutions of high culture in the name of revolution, it remains a struggle ( noy in the Bolshevik sense, just in the sense that it is difficult) to define sufficient, meaningful, common experiences to qualify."
Why is the current state fo affairs dealing with the culture industry not sufficient enough to come under scrutiny? The way corporations garner products for their own gain. The way trends dictate markets only because major holdings of companines sway these. The idea of the individual is becoming lost. our shopping patterns are monitored too closely adn our sense of style is contemporray or nostalgic. in the west it is not out of necessity. Our climate controlled lifestyles are suffocating this notion of the individual as we walk along under our mp3 players avoiding any newness or difference we cannot control the influence upon us. I just had to rant. this idea keeps coming back up. as a contemporary artist i feel that one has to challenge. not just art for art, but the community. it should not be any different than the average following a sitcom or a local team. We are all in this together and if we let trends dictate to us what to do( like forgetting the revolution) then we are doomed to repeat the same oppression until it results into the untelevised revolution. Un televised because 'they ' don't want others to identify with it or realise that others feel the saem way.
signing off.
g'night