This whole thing is ridiculous from beginning to end: Istvan Kantor wins the Governor-General's prize for art in Canada for his off-the-wall conceptual and performance crap.Ridiculous art to begin with, then two guards are posted on him at the awards ceremony just in case he tries some off-the-wall mess. (Actually, his art is very much on-the-wall since he is best known for spontaneously painting X's on the wall with his own blood.) So the message seems to be: "We like the art you make, but don't dare try and make any of it around us. Yes, we love it when you shock people, just don't shock us." Look, either you think he's valid or you don't. If you're going to give the idiot an award, you ought to be prepared to deal with whatever shit he has to dish out. (Above, shot of Istvan Kantor performance--I'm sure all the spectators in the photo are responding to some sound off out of frame, but what irony that everyone looks like they're completely ignoring the performer.)

Here's a quote from the article:

In a recent interview with the weekly publication Montreal Mirror he also defined the art "movement" he created called "neoism."

"Well, no one is supposed to know what neoism is and I don't think anybody does, including myself," Mr. Kantor said. "The success of neoism is basically in the question, 'What is neoism?' because everybody wants to know. There are millions of definitions and none of them are good for anything. But you could define it by saying neoism is what makes neoism more interesting than neoism. Or you could say that neoism is that which makes neoism obsolete."

Yeah, Istvan. Whatever. Isn't he so right now?

One of Mr. Kantor's videos, Jericho, will be shown on March 12 at the National Gallery. Most of the 17-minute video contains wildly flashing images of Mr. Kantor in various costumes, ranging from a prisoner to a Ku Klux Klansman, screaming obscenity-laden, anarchistic slogans. In one segment titled Testimony, a semi-nude Mr. Kantor is seen on his back, his knees to his chest, spinning in circles. A megaphone appears to be inserted into his rectum. "I am nothing; nothing to say," says Mr. Kantor.

I couldn't agree more. Which I guess makes him a whole heck of a lot more honest than a lot of artists.

Elswhere, David Hockney is denigrating photography, saying it's all weak and crappy next to painting. My knee-jerk reaction is that he's wrong, that photography is just one more way of seeing the world, neither more nor less valid than any of the arts. But then he nuances his argument in this way:

Photography, with its claim to truth, is a discipline, he thinks, and he's glad digital technology is ending the rule of the one-eyed monster that never lied. "I suppose I never thought the world looked like photographs, really. A lot of people think it does but it's just one little way of seeing it.

Ok, so it's truth he's concerned with, and the recording of truth, as opposed to, say, expression. And of course, photography always claims some kind of truth that it doesn't really have. Digital manipulation exposes that lie. So maybe he's right. I don't know, the jury's out on that one. (Above, Loretta Lux's "The Wanderer," 2003, digitally manipulated photo now on exhibit in New York.)

Cleaning house, here are few more interesting things I've noticed online:

A pair of articles on reality TV. This one in the Wall Street Journal about reality TV and the Arab world. And this one in the New York Times about the Amish complaining about a proposed(?) reality show that makes them look stupid. Okay, yeah, apparently they don't get the point of reality television if they think they're supposed to come off any other way. If people don't make themselves look foolish on reality TV, the editors will jump in and do the job for them. So yeah, they're right to be annoyed.

Dyske Suematsu posted a very interesting article at Rhizome called The Myth of Meritocracy in which he argues that salesmanship is not some adjunct skill to art making, but is in fact the same as art making. Oversimplifying of course, but that's the gist of it. He argues that artists don't become famous because they're influential, they become influential because they're famous. Compelling. And I have to admit the idea appeals to the marketing hack in me.

Che Guevara is becoming chic-er than ever. And by plastering the angry communist anti-hero's face all over some supermodel's too-skinny ass, capitalism once again demonstrates its ability to empty anything of its meaning and replace it with the logic of merchandising.

And finally, most marketing people are now--and apparently always will be--one step behind when it comes to understanding the Web. First they shout at you with those annoying animated banner ads. (Yeah, I've had to place a few of those in my evil marketing days.) Now they've gotten all fancy with Flash, so they can annoy you in high definition. I agree with the wise Peter Blackshaw of Intelliseek:

==Rather than focusing on making promotions as ostentatious as possible, Blackshaw says advertisers ought to draw a lesson from the success of keyword advertising. Keyword campaigns, in which merchants buy small text ads that crop up whenever someone types a specified word or word combination into a search engine, are successful because they're relevant, not because they're flashy, he said.==

The trick is you can't let design people get in the mix. They want to overdesign everything and have this idea that everyone wants flash and pizzaz everywhere they turn. I can hear the collective gasp from all my friends who know me as a designer. What can I say, you know I'm right!

Sleeping at a normal time tonight...can't wait.

current music: DJ Spooky, personal mix

Is there only one Monty Cantsin or is it a group pseudonym? I had the latter impression when I used to dabble in mail art and had at least one Cantsin on my list. Or would that have been Kantor himself? (Gee, should I have worn gloves when I opened his envelopes?)