What a shame that such a unique opportunity is wasted on such a mediocre curator. This nouveau-rich collector could have sent a curator of renown in his place rather than making the project all about himself. Aside from the fact that he obviously lacks experience or any actual taste, it's widely considered unacceptable for any curator to highlight themselves in their work in this way. The exhibition is and should be about the artists and the art, not the wealth, connections, and boldness of the curator. This will read as overwhelmingly narcissistic in the art context, which means it will only ever be seen as a kind of publicity stunt in the same vein as high altitude sky diving (what if Red Bull repeated the event, but this time the aeronaut jumped from the balloon with a canvas and oils?) For instance it's laughable that he mentions Picasso in the first sentence, as if to insinuate that it is preordained that this project will produce historic works of art.
What's worse, the framing is absurd. What will they make when they return? Something quite similar to what they made when they left! An artist's practice is something built over years, not some kind of instantaneous response to a single experience. Perhaps it will affect the trajectory of their careers – probably unpredictably for having been associated with this bizarre, self-aggrandizing project – and perhaps it won't. To prescribe this outcome in advance of even seeing what happens is boring and totally closes the possibility of unexpected and interesting outcomes.
I think going to the moon for entirely impractical reasons is itself a conceptually beautiful act, but it's too bad it's been spoiled in this way. The story is thus: "rich man pays for himself and a handful of famous people to be flown around the moon and back." Cool story.
To me, the most interesting part of this is the incredible risk that all of these people who presumably have much to lose will take together. The true climax will be when they return safely, or not.
I cannot fathom why you find it so necessary to constrain discovery.
None of us knows what these artists will create after their flight. You think they'll do nothing beyond what they've done before. I think they might be inspired in ways we can't foresee.
I'm pleased those who are in position to do this are doing it. Maybe it'll be a bust. Maybe nothing new will come of it. Maybe they'll all die in a fireball at launch or during re-entry. Maybe the resulting art will eclipse Picasso.
Whatever the result, I'm deeply grateful to everyone involved in this.
> I cannot fathom why you find it so necessary to constrain discovery.
In turn, I cannot fathom why the face and money behind this project finds it so necessary to constrain discovery by prescribing the outcome in advance.
> I'm pleased those who are in position to do this are doing it. Maybe it'll be a bust. Maybe nothing new will come of it. Maybe they'll all die in a fireball at launch or during re-entry. Maybe the resulting art will eclipse Picasso.
Yes, this would be an interesting framing for the project!
> it's widely considered unacceptable for any curator to highlight themselves in their work in this way
So then he's not a curator but a patron. There's entire wings of galleries dedicated to portraits of patrons of the arts.
You make some good points but your framing of art as some kind of system with established rules, more than just heaving out your opinion on it just isn't reality.
Yup, and it's vulgar and deserves to be condemned.
Moreover, museums don't allow the donors to curate the exhibitions, and artists do not mention their patrons in their work.
Art is in fact a system with established rules, which reflect good sense, and this collector is very much operating within that framework, just tastelessly.
Ah, sorry – quite obvious upon inspection! Yes, I will concede that there was a time when this sort of thing was a regular practice and I could have clarified that here I'm speaking about art in the modern context. Perhaps there are artists in the past 100 years who somehow involve their patrons in their work, but this is quite apart from what we witness with this project – the patron, dignifying himself sans-artists or art.
How do you know that he isn't going to have a renown creator help select the artists?
Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that singular profound experiences can drive the creation of art or change the nature of an artist's future work.
Your cynicism is not much different from those that complain that the immense resources spent by engineers at SpaceX could better go to helping the impoverished.
I don't think it makes any sense to hand over this idea to some ivory tower team that thinks they know better than the innovators and creators of the ideas themselves.
> How do you know that he isn't going to have a renown creator help select the artists?
He has already done half the job by framing the entire project (around himself). Involving a curator would mean allowing them to frame the project around the practices of the actual artists involved.
> Your cynicism is not much different from those that complain that the immense resources spent by engineers at SpaceX could better go to helping the impoverished.
My position would be more analogous to someone arguing that it's a shame people don't use the service offered by SpaceX to attempt more ambitious projects.
> Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that singular profound experiences can drive the creation of art or change the nature of an artist's future work.
I did not contradict this.
With regard to an "ivory tower team," I'm just a bit surprised you would think that any competent curator would necessarily be comparable to elitist academics. In actual practice, the kind of respected artists and curators I have in mind are habitually humble and thoughtful people.
What's worse, the framing is absurd. What will they make when they return? Something quite similar to what they made when they left! An artist's practice is something built over years, not some kind of instantaneous response to a single experience. Perhaps it will affect the trajectory of their careers – probably unpredictably for having been associated with this bizarre, self-aggrandizing project – and perhaps it won't. To prescribe this outcome in advance of even seeing what happens is boring and totally closes the possibility of unexpected and interesting outcomes.
I think going to the moon for entirely impractical reasons is itself a conceptually beautiful act, but it's too bad it's been spoiled in this way. The story is thus: "rich man pays for himself and a handful of famous people to be flown around the moon and back." Cool story.
To me, the most interesting part of this is the incredible risk that all of these people who presumably have much to lose will take together. The true climax will be when they return safely, or not.