The previous two posts inevitably bring to mind of a certain other individual whose work I've admired. But can he be legitimately classified as an Artist?
In my terms, absolutely. But then I think everything people do is recognisable as art. (And that all institutions are recognisable as cults..)
What about this guy?
The Church of Scientology was not intended to be art in any conventional sense. Its purpose was to make money and slaves for Mr Hubbard, shoring up his rampant god complex.
"Writing stories for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a creative man wants to make a million dollars, the way to do it is to start your own religion." Etc.
But however venal its objectives, it's also a bizarre, byzantine and beautiful creative accomplishment - and LRH is recognisable as a Reality Artist of jawdropping genius. (A greedy, sadistic, megalomaniacal cunt, sure - but that's neither here nor there. He got his. And genius in ugly forms is still genius.)
These speculations stem largely from my experiences with this singular beastie - the most extreme example I know of a mind control cult which was, covertly but very explicitly, created and maintained as a legitimate Art Project.
Distinctions, eh.
man, you're doing such a better job of keeping an Art blog than me. poor bbwc; i really should be fired as its proprietress.
enjoying, looking forward to more.
x
Posted by: j | October 26, 2007 at 06:23 AM
Hey, you're Qualified now. Time to let Them make art blog posts about *you*..
Posted by: teigan | October 26, 2007 at 07:34 AM