Angst or Art?

In the Jetsonian world of BuzzFeed and Instagram, new, "groundbreaking" artists are a daily occurrence. When pulling something out of your ass (or your vagina) passes for art, it's hard to determine which statement-oriented artists will become the Andy Warhol's of our time and which will be lost in The Cloud.

Of course a lacquered turd mounted in a here-today-gone-tomorrow gallery is nothing new, the internet just gets it to us faster, and on to Tosh.0 where it likely belongs. On one hand, the web gets art to people who exist outside the elite world of self designated experts who tell us what's good to compensate for their own lack of talent.

I'm a huge proponent of making art accessible to the masses. That sounds like it should be a given, but only because you're reading a blog. The art community can be ruthlessly closed-door and exclusionary. I'm talking of those who run art, not those who make it.

Unfortunately, breaking down the walls of our hallowed halls of culture doesn't just redefine art for a new generation, it also opens it up to the hackneyed, adolescent crisis-culture that confuses memes with a message.

Steve Rosenfield

Steve Rosenfield's photography was mentioned on BuzzFeed today. I say "mentioned," not "featured," because BuzzFeed has a wide trench between its well crafted journalism and its user content. Steve Rosenfield falls into the latter.

I'm not going to claim to be an uninformed web surfer who simply doesn't like what he sees. I studied art for seven years, was raised in a dark room, and follow three generations of artists and photographers and my father is an accomplished author. I'm also not some bourgeoisie douchebag who thinks that art should be defined, and reserved, for the rich.

The problem with Rosenfield's photography isn't that it's bad. His images are good. Part of the problem is the wealth of technology available to the average eye. In short, it's impossible to take a bad picture. That makes it easy for all of us to make beautiful prints to pass out as Christmas presents, but it also makes the field of photography infinitely more competitive.

But Rosenfield is also trying to send a message with his work, and that message is too literal to mean anything profound. His medium is simple, portraying subjects with an insecurity scrawled across a part of their body. With themes as common as "DAMAGED GOODS" and "DUMB BLONDE," Rosenfield's attempt to paint pictures of judgment and double standards falls on its face as a nihilistic imbalance. If he accomplishes anything, it isn't his goal, but portrays a generation - most of his subjects appear to be in their 20s - desperately trying to seek a false sense of pride in back-door-brags like "MAN WHORE" and "ALIENATED," i.e. "special."

While Rosenfield seems to be asking why his generation is so troubled, perhaps his work does serve a purpose, by asking why his generation seeks their fifteen minutes on BuzzFeed broadcasting their perceived faults.

I'm gay, I'm insecure about my age and my hairline, and I'm not quite sure I'm following my passion, but I've never, even at my worst, been as insecure as Rosenfield's (very attractive) subjects. His work sends a message as literal as those of his models, and that's not that they're troubled, it's that they, and his work, have very skewed narcissism. If Rosenfield's project has any message, it's that it's hot to be troubled.

Detroit - a New Kind of City

BuzzFeed posted an amazing article today written by a kid who decided to stick around Detroit after college and invest. Drew Philip paints a unique insider's look at America's lost city, a place that's captured our fascination for its blight, decline, and unrivalled corruption, and show's us why Detroit might not be as lost as it seems to those who criticize from their desks in New York and San Francisco, too afraid or disinterested to actually venture to Motor City.

It's a long read, well worth it, and I'll let it speak for itself. Philip shows us the ups and downs of his adopted city, and the beauty found in its grit. But perhaps the most interesting question his article posits is in the way he asks what we all ask of Detroit: What's next?

While the city is far from experiencing any sort of renaissance, the media's love affair with it has driven outpriced refugees from boomtowns around the country to explore Detroit's bargain basement real estate. Companies are even looking to Detroit for its affordable talent from nearby universities.

Drew Philip - BuzzFeed.com

But Philip describes a new city. Did New York, San Francisco, and DC actually win the war on poverty, crime, and blight, or did they trade their ills for new ones? The urban success stories in America are false beacons of aspiration. Crime has been relocated to the boroughs and suburbs, a middle class can't exist, and those who don't make six figures are relegated to places like Oakland and indentured to rent, unable to enjoy the exciting cities they chose. There comes a point in many who question, "Why am I here?" If you've been pushed to Queens you might as well live in Pittsburgh.

Detroit, a blank slate, is in the unique position to become a new kind of city, and that's what has happened amongst those who weathered its worst. While a slow creep of transplants downtown have brought their Whole Foods baggage, along with the transformative model that turned Manhattan into Disney World right down to the price tag, the most collateral of damage in Detroit has created a post apocalyptic city that looks like anything but Thunderdome. Out of lawlessness, an organic sense of civic responsibility reigns over neighborhoods that the city no longer services. Once densely packed turn of the century homes now sparsely dot the city's blocks, in their place are orchards, wheat fields, and chicken coups.

As the city contemplates the unprecedented "right sizing," an effort to abandon neighborhoods beyond downtown and shrink the city's limits, those forgotten neighborhoods are modeling a new kind of American city that's worth a second look.

Why I Bought a House in Detroit for $500