During few days, couple things reminded me of the topic. Few personal correspondences and also in academic topic me referring french art collective Groupe De Recherche D'Art.
Quote"Are we researchers? Are we still artists? What should our relations be with galleries and museums?"
"...by founding the Group, we were deciding to leave aside the personal problems and ambitions of each one of us in favour of systematic research. We were reckoning on pooling a sum of concepts and research which would no longer owe anything to the whims of personal inspiration. At the same time we denounced the cult of personality and the speculation in which art and artists were the stake. We were keen to restore a certain conception of the public that had been devalued by obscurantist art criticism, which considered that art only addresses the elite.
To do this we planned to escape from the traditional gallery circuit, but to stay in touch with the public as closely as possible so as to change the existing situation."
It leads me to question related to industrial or noise. It seems obvious that in this day and age, there is conflict of not caring about artists at all (plenty of art and sound available with no connection to actual source) and the total opposite of utmost cult of personality. And where perhaps if art is "genuine" or not, is measured by some strange mundane emotional & personal attachment. Like, the popularity of perhaps venting out your personal issues/relationships/problems is seen more "real", than perhaps more ambitious substance which tells very little, if anything, about the creator.
In such enviroment, one perhaps sees that the cult of personality, importance of specific artists, his past and his personal life becomes more valuable than the actual ideas presented in art. Of course these two are linked together to high extent, but it leads me thinking how important is the sound itself or the substance itself, that it is possible for artists to NOT get credit. To hope work itself speaks.
This would be very nicely working in form of collective as described in manifesto of Groupe De Recherche D'Art. We can see it in noise, to certain extent. People work under secret aliases, release materials under secret labels. But most often it is eventually revealed. Someone will spill the information who was what, and suddenly item nobody cared, might become wanted. There has been projects such as Death Pact Internation. Which at least in theory is loose collective of personnel.
I'm thinking of such things like IRWIN GROUP, who together with Laibach and Scipion Nasice Sisters Theater formed NSK. Irwing group was collective art, where paintings didn't include signatures as they were not artists personal works, but collective. Artist himself was irrelevant, but the art communicated with... ehm, should we say "higher goals" than exposing some personal emotions. This method was perhaps better developed in Irwin than Laibach. One could imagine value of noise, where anything attached to rock'n'roll, modern day "me me me" ego boost and such things would be rejected.
Of course as said, many bands, or labels, have had similarities in approach. But I'm wondering have I completely missed, or is there "collective noise" which follows such general lines? Where line-up (of artists involved) may change almost randomly, where credit goes to group/idea rather than who exactly was behind it? Can one stay outside the spotlight without enjoying the applause people may give? Narcissism is kind of dominant characteristic after all.
Now when I think, actually comes to my mind Cathartic Process magazine. I recall it came with C-30 tape of uncredited noise. And perhaps also some of visual works remained unknown?
