Just watched Peter Blake being interviewed on Hardtalk. Near the end, he wanted to speak his mind but held off.
dave wins big at intersectional bingo, hence his apathy at an artist being silence. it's the same old story though. the people in this day and age who want to silence the artists--who are by nature seekers of truth--are the same people who try to silence the seekers of truth throughout history. every age has them. philistines they are called.Also, he's cowed into not speaking openly because the twatterverse, the minority on a platform of bilge, garners support from bored twats that didn't even know they wanted to support bollocks until they picked up their phones. The small minded f***s that they are.
I don't necessarily get the impression he feels victimized. I think he's actually keeping a pretty rational perspective on things. I think it's the journalist that's pushing for some contentious blurb, not Blake himself whining. He's just saying things have changed, and that it's pointless to make a big stink about it because...well it could just be because he's f***ing 90. Or it could be because he knows that even if he offers an opinion in the most measured, non confrontational way, the new norms dictate that he'll be ripped a new asshole as soon as the syllables leave his lips. So he probably figures the heck with it.
Yeah I think that the way the article is framed by OP says way more about the poster than the artist. I think that basically the culture is just changing. For better or worse is totally subjective. I agree that it needn't be perceived as inherently threatening to anyone...especially Blake.“I made a fortune with art that I would have to defend now. I am a victim!”
I love how anonymous drags trans into it even though it’s never mentioned.
Peter Blake must be really stupid not to know he could still probably paint the same things he always did but a changing world might interpret them differently.
And the whole point of this seems to be that anonymous is upset that things change. We’re supposed to share in this borrowed sense of victimization. Is it that dangerous to anonymous that someone may express an opinion that may conflict with the one they are too inarticulate to even express?
Is the idea that the assumed default setting of straight white males as artists is no longer carved in stone and that “others” may also have a chance at finding a voice so upsetting that we’re meant to be afraid?
Well I actually agree. He doesn’t say that much and it’s the way he’s being used to make a point that I am reacting to. And then the way the article itself is being used by anonymous who, as is typical with these things, never really says exactly what the issue is.I don't necessarily get the impression he feels victimized. I think he's actually keeping a pretty rational perspective on things. I think it's the journalist that's pushing for some contentious blurb, not Blake himself whining. He's just saying things have changed, and that it's pointless to make a big stink about it because...well it could just be because he's f***ing 90. Or it could be because he knows that even if he offers an opinion in the most measured, non confrontational way, the new norms dictate that he'll be ripped a new asshole as soon as the syllables leave his lips. So he probably figures the heck with it.
I get what he's saying about the pretty girls thing. That now for some reason it's seen as objectification...like as though there just couldn't possibly be any artistic or non prurient celebratory reason to paint a beautiful woman.
That is, I agree with him, sad and odd. But we are also living in an age of "you're beautiful how you are, be a big fat unhealthy gross Georgie Girl pig, it's fine."
And yet I see all these Instagram and TikTok reels that literally consist of nothing but these little skinny-minnie dilettante thots, mincing for the camera, lip syncing to art they didn't make, parading around in their granny-chic thrift store clothes, "look at me look at me..." And I'm talking about women who one could reasonably assume traffic in progressive, liberal culture and subscribe to the usual correspondent modern views thereof, such as pillorying straight white men for objectifiying women in art. I'm getting off track here but anyway I definitely think there's a societal double standard at play.
Tl;dr: I don't think he's crying victim nor do I think there's any implication he feels cowed into silence. I think he's just saying he's 90 and he's seen the culture change and he doesn't want to get into some big stupid bees' nest-poking debate because who cares anyway. He's picking his battles. No more, no less.
Agreed 100 percent, with the caveat that someone or some faction will always find something offensive about anything. But I don't see that precluding anything he's done or anything of that ilk. And because, as you noted, he is generally understood through the pop-art lens, there's going to be that "frivolous" connotation put on his work because it is born of commercialism, which I think reduces the possibility of contention from "serious" critics or even the public in general. Now personally I don't think that makes it frivolous in and of itself but I think Warhol flipped that whole script irrevocably anyway. Also speaking of which that docuseries on Warhol's diaries on Netflix is inf***ingcredible btw.I really don’t think painting s of beautiful women would be controversial but they would probably be considered commercial art and not fine art. The art world appears to me to be a huge money laundering scheme and within that you can find examples of agendas being pushed. But there is room for so much. I believe that to be a controversial artist someone would have to actually work pretty hard to push buttons.