Romancing the rock-hard

Romanticism came on the scene in the late 18th century. In the beginning of the nineteenth century Romance novels were birthing their own genre. Novels like Pride_and_prejudice were popularized by the woman of that century. Housewives or..ehem "domestic engineers" were the ones who were buying and reading the tales and poetry of romance that led to the romantic kitch that sells in grocery stores now. These types of "trashy novels"(according to Wikipedia)are most popular in the United States and Canada, where it is the best-selling genre. In North America in 2002, sales of romance novels generated US$1.63 billion and comprised 34.6% of all popular fiction sold - by comparison, general fiction comprised 24.1% and mystery, detective and suspense fiction comprised 23.1%. Over 2000 romance novels were published, and there were 51.1 million romance novel readers. Scary, but beside the point. What I'm interested in is the progression of the novels from the period of Romanticism to today. Basically they haven't transgressed in audience, only in media. The Romances that people, probably still mostly women, take in today are still experienced at home with the auspice of day-time television(soap operas etc.). The longest running soap opera started as a radio program in 1937. As of Feb 23rd 2007, Guiding Light aired its 15,115th episode; it premiered as a television show June 30th, 1952. I consider workout videos to be day-time television. They have a strange permissible sexuality about them. One of my earliest sexual feelings was directed toward Jane Fonda in a leotard from her 1982 video Workout. I didn't feel guilty about it at all, and I was raised Catholic! Literally, these videos are intended to get you worked up, flushed; and with the long term intention of making one more sexually attractive(good health=stability/virility= sexy). Which brings me to the presentation of the body at such a state. In body building one's body is representative of their ultimate physical power, beauty, and strength. These final products are presented in an often fantastical way. Hardbodies take on the persona of characters from Norse or Medieval tales or imagery when posing for pictures, an imagery littered with romantic signifiers of the individual and the sublime, adventure, mythical presence, etc . The most interesting aspect of body building is in its psychology. It is quite the opposite of aerobics which is meant to keep one slim and trim. The super-human levels to which body builders take their physical appearance is mind-boggling to most people. It seems that this is simply the point: to be super human(body building isn't about how strong you are, but how much control you have over your ridiculously sculpted vehicle, including...your mind); that and being addicted to the endorphin rush you get from such activities may help too.
Art practices are similar. These days artists who seem to have
"complete control"(again, Matthew Barney, a body builder in his own right, or Matthew Ritchie , or Danica Phelps)over their work do quite well. The work is self contained and although referential to much "outside" information, still very much insular with an explanation for every movement made. This doesn't mean the work isn't interesting, just limited. Aerobics must be a routine practice in order to be effective. Artists who have identifiable work due to a regular practice also do very well. The monetary success of art these days means that comodification can equal success. If you make work that's identifiable then you can act as a brand. I assume it must be an especially nice feeling to have paid thousands of dollars for a work of art that you can display and have people say "oh, you've got a so and so". So and So, I'm not one of these artists. My work varies, sometimes drastically. More often than not I hear about obsession being a criteria for quality art to be made. A person can be obsessed with many things; one of which is a rapacity for knowledge which inevitably leads to different ways of thinking which leads to different work. Some of my favorite artists, and the most important artists, have had a history of making dissimilar objects. Picasso, Picabia, Kipenburger, Polke, Duchamp, the list goes on and on. The act of experimentation, wandering, testing oneself, surprising oneself, to me is the practice of a true artist. An artist who isn't concerned with control, but contribution.