Death of the Artist



 

  Death of the Artist

  All rights reserved

  © 2012 Justin James Bartlett

  Cover design, typography and design concept

  by Justin James Bartlett

 

 

  [On Art]

 

  a: Art’s Necessary Futility

  b: Digital Discharge

  c: Artistic Reality

  d: Art’s Self-Destruction

  [On Design]

 

  a: Post-ideologism

  b: Neo-ideologism

  c: The danger of Inspiration

  d: An Unwelcome Ideology

 

  This work is comprised of a collection of short studies on the subjects of art, design and, what I label, post-ideological1 phenomena. The book is intended to form a study and critique of contemporary views concerning art and visual culture today. I also aim to analyse, explore and question the concepts of Art2 and The Artist3 in a more fundamental and definite praxis.

  The arrogant nature of the title to this work is intentional. I hope to imply an obvious and deliberately obtuse reference to Roland Barthes’ Death of the Author. The work is somewhat similar in subject matter and I make reference to Barthes’ work. However, Death of the Author postulates the metaphorical death of the author as the creator of a piece/work-of-art. Barthes hypothesises about how the author’s intentions are not to be considered, as they are in fact irrelevant to the piece, on the grounds that “To give a text an Author”4 and consign to it one single definitive meaning “is to impose a limit on that text”. I conjecture about a different dimension or façade of The Artist, not as a creator of artwork, but as the creator of Art (The metaphysical creator of transcendental self-expression). I strongly agree with Barthes’ hypothesis and, in some respects, it has helped lead to mine. The “death” I talk about however, is a somewhat more literal collapse than that of Barthes’ author (artist). I conjecture that The Artist is not, in actuality, what we suppose it is. And that it does not exist or have any basis in reality, space or time. The Artist as creator of Art is not a physical person or being, but rather a much more complex series of psychological states, events and phenomena that, themselves, present us with a range of theoretical paradoxes and superpositions that we must try to make sense of if we ever hope to understand Art.

  In the case of Art I believe that we are greatly misunderstanding its point, meaning and function as an intrinsic part of civilisation. Art as human expression is finding itself with less and less space and relevance in modern-day culture. With dynamic capitalism, technological dependence, and Internet fetishism, are we loosing interest in myriad forms of artistic self-expression? Could this loss have detrimental effects on society and humanity?

  This study also ponders and questions the reality of Art. What is art’s reality? Can it be shaped or sculpted? Does it exist? I feel these are important questions to contemplate and are necessary to ask if we are to gain a true understanding of Art and its functions. We must also inquire about Art’s potency. Is Art pure? Does true, artistic expression exist? Can Art ever be absolute? Is its existence or manifestation truly incomprehensible?

  In the case of design culture, we are witnessing the deterioration and disappearance of conceptual, considered graphic design. Graphic design and popular visual culture in general is becoming increasingly more concerned with superficial aesthetics. I surmise that we are living in, and witnessing, a post-ideological generation of designers/design. As we study contemporary design culture we can see that this phenomenon is indeed manifest. This should be worrying, as I fear it is causing the stagnation of modern visual/design culture, leading to plagiarism, un-original, un-inspiring, often impotent design concepts. I feel the remedy for this is: acknowledgement and understanding of this phenomena, and advocation of Neo-ideologism5 within design culture. This must be, firstly, recognised. And secondly, acted upon immediately in order to rule-out the now seemingly inevitable heat-death of visual culture.