Shop It!

The Shop It! muster during a Haifa Museum of Art critiques and subverts popular, mass consumer culture. The methods by that this is achieved include of a far-reaching accumulation of media and is grown or unpacked from several angles: photography, collage, painting, sculpture, installation, new media or video, prints and drawings are all on offer and fit into well-conceived curatorial themes. That is mass enlightenment in fashion, in shopping, in a cult of a favourite or fame, a judgment of income and “cultural capital,” a commodification of objects or rather a objectification of a thesis and a speedy, pop-ish, aspect peculiarity of entrepreneur dominance.

The doubt that a muster tries to answer is: How can one furnish an artistic involvement that will not be co-opted by a system? This is a surpassing doubt for art, either rebellious or collusive with a prevalent and widespread complement – either enlightenment is deliberate marginal or executive to a ideological arm of state power, is nonetheless another object, another resource of control and power, both in terms of economics and what Jacques Ranciere referred to as “cultural capital.”

I enjoyed a video square by Shaber Marcus, where he parades in a imagination automobile down streets in Israel, fluttering and saluting while passers-by are interviewed.

Most contend that they caring not about art and have never listened of this artist. It’s a quirky post-modern try to mishandle a thought of celebrity and prominence instead a unfitness of art, while heroes are hollow, vital currently in a multitude enraptured by a bionic, a digital, a mass-produced – orderly putting art into another difficulty or simply progressing that all is art – that amounts to a same thing.

What was unequivocally gratifying was a deconstruction of religion, of renouned images, of fashion, of story so that all can be reduced to a commodity, where rabble and a holy co-exist, where everything, as Jean Baudrillard argued, is a simulacrum, a duplicate or a amicable construction. References to chronological pieces deemed critical in a account of art – such as by Henri Matisse, Gustav Courbet, Dan Flavin and Jeff Koons – and durations of art such as a Renaissance, Romanticism and so on are “quoted,” to use post-modern verbiage, and afterwards reinserted in a new context so that “high” and “low” enlightenment rather merge.

In that hierarchical destabilization – that includes another executive thesis in a overcoming of a male-female polemics where a former is valued some-more than a latter as absolute and materialistically abounding – a probability for post-Enlightenment and rationalist, clinical aesthetics gives approach and maybe a new consciousness, over consumer enlightenment might emerge.

Yet, either art can unequivocally grasp this, as it is itself consumed, is a doubt a would-be gallery-goer might answer for him or herself. At any rate, a muster is well-conceived and probing.

Whether one can, however, get over a superficial, clinical cultured of a gallery itself and a expostulate for stress around a art work and retrieve an “authentic” and “unalienated” being is questionable, where a account of art story during these times righteously questions a “great artist” and “master piece” paradigm. Beyond difference and sell value, there is still certainly a beauty of form by that a chairman – an artist – is desirous with something same to (dare we say?) something metaphysical.

Join Jerusalem Post Premium Plus now for only $5 and ascent your knowledge with an ads-free website and disdainful content. Click here