February 5th, 2010 / 12:08 pm
Power Quote
Lily Hoang
Power Quote
You, whore.
Baudelaire says: All art is prostitution.
Discuss.
-
Archives
- January 2023
- February 2022
- September 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
-
Meta
only if you’re paid for it…
only if you’re paid for it…
In that case, I’ll gladly do art for twenty dollars plus the cab fare home. I’m not choosy.
In that case, I’ll gladly do art for twenty dollars plus the cab fare home. I’m not choosy.
Very good. Well said.
Very good. Well said.
i disagree. and baudelaire says “all art,” not just art that’s paid for.
i disagree. and baudelaire says “all art,” not just art that’s paid for.
this logic could then be applied to all work ever.
this logic could then be applied to all work ever.
sexual conduct/art making as attempt at addressing an other is illusory and ultimately economic? sex to know some body. art to know somebody. Both are intimate but tainted by the economics implied? idk.
sexual conduct/art making as attempt at addressing an other is illusory and ultimately economic? sex to know some body. art to know somebody. Both are intimate but tainted by the economics implied? idk.
What about the art you hide away? Store in your veins, or crumple up under pillowcases?
I’m not sure about the “all” part.
Unless it’s prostituting your creativity.
What about the art you hide away? Store in your veins, or crumple up under pillowcases?
I’m not sure about the “all” part.
Unless it’s prostituting your creativity.
I think the little Frenchman’s aphorism is off the mark. All? Non. Not even all paid-for art.
I think the little Frenchman’s aphorism is off the mark. All? Non. Not even all paid-for art.
seems like he’s saying that the creation of art is an inherent compromise (to the market, to fashion or current tastes, to the approval of a lover or group of friends or a group of people you wish to become friends with, to one’s lack of work ethic, to the ultimate pressure of time, decay and age, etc) and that, if you’re an artist, you might as well acknowledge this inherent compromise and get over it, so you can actually do something.
one question. does he consider writing excluded from “art”?
seems like he’s saying that the creation of art is an inherent compromise (to the market, to fashion or current tastes, to the approval of a lover or group of friends or a group of people you wish to become friends with, to one’s lack of work ethic, to the ultimate pressure of time, decay and age, etc) and that, if you’re an artist, you might as well acknowledge this inherent compromise and get over it, so you can actually do something.
one question. does he consider writing excluded from “art”?
Hmmm… I like this interpretation, James. Being that Baudelaire was a poet, I don’t think he excluded “writing” from “art.” I read this in his journal, I think. I don’t even remember where I read it, only that I read it & he wrote it.
All writing/art is compromised, whether it’s stashed in a drawer or not, whether you make money from it or not. If it’s stashed in a drawer, hidden from the world, written only for “oneself,” I’d call that masturbation, which at best if is a form self-prostitution & at worst is mere smug self-satisfaction. Or something like that. I haven’t worked it out yet, so feel free to disagree.
Hmmm… I like this interpretation, James. Being that Baudelaire was a poet, I don’t think he excluded “writing” from “art.” I read this in his journal, I think. I don’t even remember where I read it, only that I read it & he wrote it.
All writing/art is compromised, whether it’s stashed in a drawer or not, whether you make money from it or not. If it’s stashed in a drawer, hidden from the world, written only for “oneself,” I’d call that masturbation, which at best if is a form self-prostitution & at worst is mere smug self-satisfaction. Or something like that. I haven’t worked it out yet, so feel free to disagree.
I’d suspect he was not excluding writing. I would hope not, anyway. Certainly not poetry.
I personally do not think there is an inherent compromise in the creation of art. In most art there is undoubtedly the kind of compromise James details, and more–but not “all” art.
If you’re creating “art”, I’d think you’re looking to avoid compromises. Whether you can do that or not is another question.
I’d suspect he was not excluding writing. I would hope not, anyway. Certainly not poetry.
I personally do not think there is an inherent compromise in the creation of art. In most art there is undoubtedly the kind of compromise James details, and more–but not “all” art.
If you’re creating “art”, I’d think you’re looking to avoid compromises. Whether you can do that or not is another question.
damn, that’s harsh!
i feel like it depends more on the intent. if you’re stashing it away because you’re afraid of what other people might say, you’re compromising your art’s, let’s call it, “full potential of influence” for a feeling of security, which seems very different from masturbation.
is there a kind of prostituting of art that is admirable?
damn, that’s harsh!
i feel like it depends more on the intent. if you’re stashing it away because you’re afraid of what other people might say, you’re compromising your art’s, let’s call it, “full potential of influence” for a feeling of security, which seems very different from masturbation.
is there a kind of prostituting of art that is admirable?
for the record, i don’t think prostitution is a bad thing.
i would definitely agree that, through the creating art, you’re looking to avoid compromises. i think what baudelaire seems to be saying is that compromises are also unavoidable, even in art.
for the record, i don’t think prostitution is a bad thing.
i would definitely agree that, through the creating art, you’re looking to avoid compromises. i think what baudelaire seems to be saying is that compromises are also unavoidable, even in art.
maybe we could think about this a bit differently, as less strictly about $$. what if we think of prostitution as making one’s body available for consumption by a stranger. permitting trespass of our insides, or, if that sounds too gender-one-sided, of consenting to a detached cross-permeation with an barely identified other.
framed this way, i see what baudelaire is about. i think it invites questions similar to the questions we ask about sex. is the art we make really of our selves (are our bodies, our genitalia, really our selves?) or are these things distinct from us in some kind of spiritual sense.
maybe we could think about this a bit differently, as less strictly about $$. what if we think of prostitution as making one’s body available for consumption by a stranger. permitting trespass of our insides, or, if that sounds too gender-one-sided, of consenting to a detached cross-permeation with an barely identified other.
framed this way, i see what baudelaire is about. i think it invites questions similar to the questions we ask about sex. is the art we make really of our selves (are our bodies, our genitalia, really our selves?) or are these things distinct from us in some kind of spiritual sense.
thank you, amy. you said what i wanted to say but way more elegantly.
thank you, amy. you said what i wanted to say but way more elegantly.
why just art? why not everything any person does?
ever watched a guy sit at the bar at applebee’s drinking $2 beers staring at the UGA game?
whore.
why just art? why not everything any person does?
ever watched a guy sit at the bar at applebee’s drinking $2 beers staring at the UGA game?
whore.
i would do just about anything for 2$ beers
i would do just about anything for 2$ beers
neither did Baudelaire.
neither did Baudelaire.
Yes. He knew it well.
Yes. He knew it well.
It means that he “pays” (writing for years and writing and writing and going crazy) for “snatch or ass” (the sky high shooting load that turns into fireworks that on its release makes you wither into a little raisin, drained as you are from the joy of having created something beautiful.
It means that he “pays” (writing for years and writing and writing and going crazy) for “snatch or ass” (the sky high shooting load that turns into fireworks that on its release makes you wither into a little raisin, drained as you are from the joy of having created something beautiful.
totally didn’t think of it that way, but yeah, i can buy that.
totally didn’t think of it that way, but yeah, i can buy that.
But you can’t get away from his quote, which we’re attempting to parse. Prostitution is, literally, something for something–money, goods, etc. It’s a transaction. Or it can be a way of debasing one’s self or one’s vision. In the literal sense, I think there is a possibility of creating art in a way in which you’re not compromising anything (as noted above). I don’t see in the latter definition how that is possible.
But you can’t get away from his quote, which we’re attempting to parse. Prostitution is, literally, something for something–money, goods, etc. It’s a transaction. Or it can be a way of debasing one’s self or one’s vision. In the literal sense, I think there is a possibility of creating art in a way in which you’re not compromising anything (as noted above). I don’t see in the latter definition how that is possible.
All prostitution is art.
All prostitution is art.
I’m not saying that’s a “good thing.”
I’m not saying that’s a “good thing.”
I have no idea if what Chuck B. said is true. All I know if that I am a championship pussy eater and I only charge $100.00 per munch.
I have no idea if what Chuck B. said is true. All I know if that I am a championship pussy eater and I only charge $100.00 per munch.
All art is prostitution because calling something art is a personal perception applied to an object. This object is then subjected to numerous interpretations and, essentially, pimped out to a bunch of people to either love/hate/shit on with apathy. But all creation/creating is not prostitution and is not inherently riddled with compromise.
All art is prostitution because calling something art is a personal perception applied to an object. This object is then subjected to numerous interpretations and, essentially, pimped out to a bunch of people to either love/hate/shit on with apathy. But all creation/creating is not prostitution and is not inherently riddled with compromise.
Whoa, dude. Not the prostitution that happens near my haunts. That’s just survival. In fact, not even. That’s just a momentary fix. I know we can argue “art can be anything,” but I’m not gonna patronize these poorer-than-poor-ass-mo-fos and say they’re somehow making art by sucking an HIV positive dude off for a hit.
Whoa, dude. Not the prostitution that happens near my haunts. That’s just survival. In fact, not even. That’s just a momentary fix. I know we can argue “art can be anything,” but I’m not gonna patronize these poorer-than-poor-ass-mo-fos and say they’re somehow making art by sucking an HIV positive dude off for a hit.
Sorry–that looks way harsher than I meant it to–I know you were probably just doing a little wordplay. :) I’m probably sensitive on this subject since I live in the AIDS/non-legal prostitution capital (and Capitol) of the US. It gets pretty depressing.
Sorry–that looks way harsher than I meant it to–I know you were probably just doing a little wordplay. :) I’m probably sensitive on this subject since I live in the AIDS/non-legal prostitution capital (and Capitol) of the US. It gets pretty depressing.
sex and art are way too readily interchanged. it’s dull.
sex and art are way too readily interchanged. it’s dull.
Damn, I was just about to post:
All prostitution is art
– William T. Vollmann
Damn, I was just about to post:
All prostitution is art
– William T. Vollmann
Love Vollmann but have to disagree with him there. Anyway, he disagrees with his own quote in Poor People. Or at least, he doesn’t exactly exalt in the artistic virtues of the many types of prostitution the poor engage in.
Love Vollmann but have to disagree with him there. Anyway, he disagrees with his own quote in Poor People. Or at least, he doesn’t exactly exalt in the artistic virtues of the many types of prostitution the poor engage in.
Seconded. Art and Applebee’s, on the other hand…now that’s interesting.
Seconded. Art and Applebee’s, on the other hand…now that’s interesting.
Nope. I say art is only compromised if the artist self-censors or caves to the vagaries of the marketplace or peer pressure at the expense of vision (in the making) or putting it out there (post-production).
Nope. I say art is only compromised if the artist self-censors or caves to the vagaries of the marketplace or peer pressure at the expense of vision (in the making) or putting it out there (post-production).
what are y’all calling “uncompromised”? work that somehow doesn’t involve problem-solving, revision, or accommodations in the art-making to meet the reality of the environment in which the art is made?
what are y’all calling “uncompromised”? work that somehow doesn’t involve problem-solving, revision, or accommodations in the art-making to meet the reality of the environment in which the art is made?
wow, OK… put this way, I’ll agree, amy, per the front part of your post.
re: the second – are you suggesting that “our bodies, our genitalia” are disconnected from ourselves? I don’t think you can disconnect mind-body-heart-spirit in any way. all is one.
wow, OK… put this way, I’ll agree, amy, per the front part of your post.
re: the second – are you suggesting that “our bodies, our genitalia” are disconnected from ourselves? I don’t think you can disconnect mind-body-heart-spirit in any way. all is one.
whore.
whore.
you’re just shittalking alec, and you know it.
vollmann’s shittalking, too.
(but then, aren’t we all?)
you’re just shittalking alec, and you know it.
vollmann’s shittalking, too.
(but then, aren’t we all?)
seriously? dull?
have you *seen* ann margaret in the swinger?
seriously? dull?
have you *seen* ann margaret in the swinger?
speaking in absolutes (“all” of anything) is rarely, if ever, truth.
and proud of it
speaking in absolutes (“all” of anything) is rarely, if ever, truth.
and proud of it
aesthetic pleasure linked to sexual gratification?
aesthetic pleasure linked to sexual gratification?
sorry I didn’t mean that was a real vollmann quote!
sorry I didn’t mean that was a real vollmann quote!
Weird, I’d never seen that Vollmann quote.
Amber, I know–I’m not trying to elevate prostitution to the level of art. Sorry for the stupid aphoristic format. I meant (if this makes sense), in terms of contemporary events, prostitution has as much to do with the abstraction of desire, through the circulation of its image, as pornography. I just meant that we no longer see prostitution as a set of real relations–rather, it’s desire swallowed by the image. It is rationalized as a decision to “sell the body,” to produce oneself as image–as if the body and mind can be split.
That’s probably nonsense. I haven’t worked it out too well to myself.
Weird, I’d never seen that Vollmann quote.
Amber, I know–I’m not trying to elevate prostitution to the level of art. Sorry for the stupid aphoristic format. I meant (if this makes sense), in terms of contemporary events, prostitution has as much to do with the abstraction of desire, through the circulation of its image, as pornography. I just meant that we no longer see prostitution as a set of real relations–rather, it’s desire swallowed by the image. It is rationalized as a decision to “sell the body,” to produce oneself as image–as if the body and mind can be split.
That’s probably nonsense. I haven’t worked it out too well to myself.
lawlz
lawlz
Who is the prostitute?
For a viewer/reader/whatever to try to understand something I create, they have to allow me to have my way with them to some degree–to open their senses, their mind, to something I brought into the world that confronts them.
Or, perhaps with art, both parties are prostitutes (so I guess in terms of pay, they come out even).
Who is the prostitute?
For a viewer/reader/whatever to try to understand something I create, they have to allow me to have my way with them to some degree–to open their senses, their mind, to something I brought into the world that confronts them.
Or, perhaps with art, both parties are prostitutes (so I guess in terms of pay, they come out even).
“It is rationalized as a decision to “sell the body,” to produce oneself as image–as if the body and mind can be split.”
That’s not nonsense, Alec. I see what you were getting at. Not literal prostitution as a figurative selling of parts. Interesting way to think about it.
“It is rationalized as a decision to “sell the body,” to produce oneself as image–as if the body and mind can be split.”
That’s not nonsense, Alec. I see what you were getting at. Not literal prostitution as a figurative selling of parts. Interesting way to think about it.
Yeah, I was shittalking. I know it.
Yeah, I was shittalking. I know it.
At least, let’s say: prostitution requires contraceptives. For art is every kind of contraceptives fatal.
At least, let’s say: prostitution requires contraceptives. For art is every kind of contraceptives fatal.
My wife saw
I was about to search for “contraceptives”
In Google
(For correct spelling).
“Why?” she wondered
“Because of Baudelaire” I said.
My wife saw
I was about to search for “contraceptives”
In Google
(For correct spelling).
“Why?” she wondered
“Because of Baudelaire” I said.
This is Baudelaire, so let’s do the quote a little more favour than thinking about it purely as a monetary transaction, hey? Sex and art are often too easily interchanged, but consider the transaction on a larger scale. The allowance of a foreign or new body intercourse with yours. The artwork, for it to have an influence on the real, must walk the streets, or at least be housed with a lobby and a staircase to invite the other body. Art is not monogamous since as prostitute (or pimp/madame, possibly better suited to this explanation of mine) we are either seeking the largest quantifiable response – the most possible readers or viewers or listeners – or, the most intense, plural, heterogeneous response – an other transformed, a momentum of transformation, a new audience, a new politics etc. If art is a lover, then it is selfish. If art is a catamite, then it is enslaved. If art is asexual (in the definitional space of this description), then it is insensitive, aloof. Then again, aren’t all of these figures possible prostitutes? The unpaid, the contraband, the emotional? Art is a prostitute.
This is Baudelaire, so let’s do the quote a little more favour than thinking about it purely as a monetary transaction, hey? Sex and art are often too easily interchanged, but consider the transaction on a larger scale. The allowance of a foreign or new body intercourse with yours. The artwork, for it to have an influence on the real, must walk the streets, or at least be housed with a lobby and a staircase to invite the other body. Art is not monogamous since as prostitute (or pimp/madame, possibly better suited to this explanation of mine) we are either seeking the largest quantifiable response – the most possible readers or viewers or listeners – or, the most intense, plural, heterogeneous response – an other transformed, a momentum of transformation, a new audience, a new politics etc. If art is a lover, then it is selfish. If art is a catamite, then it is enslaved. If art is asexual (in the definitional space of this description), then it is insensitive, aloof. Then again, aren’t all of these figures possible prostitutes? The unpaid, the contraband, the emotional? Art is a prostitute.