Democracy of Taste

Contrary to what it might seem from the previous post, I am not critical of Oscar Murillo. He’s an ordinary artist, fighting the same struggles as all of us and facing the same temptations—above all the temptation to just accept a work that looks like ordinary art, to compromise with himself. He’s not good enough to be really bad, like Rothko or Richter, and he doesn’t give a shock to anyone’s taste or sensibility, so he’s not bad enough to be really good. He’s easy for any artist to identify with, in fact, because most of us are in exactly the same place, most of the time. But he brings to mind certain self-evident truths about artist’s rights—such as the inalienable Right of Self-Election. The self-elected artists recognize each other, and other parties will not necessarily accept their status, and nor should they. As far as I can see neither David Zwirner nor the Rubells have the qualifications to decide which artists matter. I do.

Robert Linsley, Untitled watercolor 2014

Robert Linsley, Untitled watercolor 2014

This entry was posted in Abstraction and Society, American Modernism, Ethics of Abstraction and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Democracy of Taste

  1. Naomi Schlinke says:

    If it interests you, please say something about “the inalienable Right of Self-Election”(which I will quote in the future). I have spoken with artists of 30 years of engagement who modestly tilt their heads and say: “Of course, it is up to the world to decide who is an artist”. This attitude makes me gag. I really appreciate your moxie to say “I do” at the end of the article.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>