We have no art (was: Pondering the social sculpture, P1)

The Balinese quote is lifted from _Understanding Media_. In his
chapter on "challenge and collapse," McLuhan identifies artists as
society's prophets because they are perspicaciously meta-media –
outside the accepted mass media of their time, un-blinded by its
ubiquity and exploring its implications. The Balinese quote first
appears in this context. He's saying that since artists are NOT
specialists, they can act as a "social conscience." (Interesting vis
Beuy's social sculpture).

McLuhan returns to the idea of everybody-as-artist in his subsequent
chapter on "games": "In a native society there is no true art
because everybody is engaged in making art. Art and games need
rules, conventions, and spectators. They must stand forth from the
over-all situation as models of it in order for the quality of play
to persist."

Which is why I'm down with the hobbyist artist. It doesn't mean you
can't get paid and exhibited. (Lew Baldwin gets paid and exhibited,
and he started out hobbyist.) It just means you'd make art whether
you were paid and exhibited or not. It means you spend more time
making cool shit and less time pimping your lame-ass contrived
specialist professional shit.

"don't need no woman
i won't take me no wife
i got the rock & roll and it'll be my life

no page in history, baby
that i don't need
i just wanna make some eardrums bleed"

- nigel tuffnel





At 10:28 PM -0500 11/18/02, Liza Sabater wrote:
>At 3:37 PM -0500 11/16/02, curt cloninger wrote:
>
>>"We have no art," say the Balinese: "we do everything as well as possible."
>
>i love this line.
>
>there is a difference between (living) art and (the business of)
>ART. my ponderings certainly have more to do with the last
>definition. thanks to (the business of) ART, i'd rather call art
>something else. i'd rather call it living as well as possible
>–certainly in the Balinese sense.
>
>
>best,
>liza

On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Liza Sabater wrote:

> At 3:37 PM -0500 11/16/02, curt cloninger wrote:
>
> >"We have no art," say the Balinese: "we do everything as well as possible."

Which is really what Beuys intended with his social sculpture.

> i love this line.
>
> there is a difference between (living) art and (the business of) ART.

That's funny; the balinese seem to be saying 'everything'.
That does include business.

> my ponderings certainly have more to do with the last definition.

> thanks to (the business of) ART,

which is also an 'art'–but rather than doing it as well
as possible you prefer to bash it

> i'd rather call art something else.
> i'd rather call it living as well as possible –certainly in the
> Balinese sense.

which is also applicable to the business of art :)

But then again, humans tend to not want to hear things
they don't want to hear.

Such as for example that Yves Klein managed art and ART.
Just like for example you keep insisting that net.art
has introduced no-thingness (immateriality) when in fact
Klein is a shining example of exactly what you say is impossible,
and so is Marina Abramovic, for example.

Klein's work continually explored themes of spirituality and
immateriality. Inevitably this led to a number of pieces which also
questioned the fiscal value of the artist's work. In 1959 he sold a
number of pieces of immaterial space (for differing prices even though
the works were seemingly identical). The purchaser, in a ritual transfer
of the work, had the receipt for the work burnt and half the gold
payment for the work was thrown in the Seine. Any resale of a zone could
only be made for double the initial purchase price, although, of course,
there was now no proof of ownership.

Not to mention of Abramovic's even more 'drastic' ideas and
performances.

And also: many of the strongest modern artists have attempted
to transform_ the ART, INC., including Beuys, and after all
isn't art a 'method' of consciousness transformation?

It's just too easy to scream the art-world sucks.
It is the artists_ who create it, and if you want a 'clever' picture,
the 'ART INC' is indeed a 'social sculpture'.

Not to mention that you INSIST that net.art is changing things it isn't?

It's completely suffering under the newbie trying to get itself
recognized by institutions syndrome, nevermind the 'first in'
opportunism it's steeped in. Nevermind that most net.art is
dictated_ by the tools used (net. computers, etc.) and controlled
by the political, cultural, corporate, social, and military agendas.

Despite your insistence to the contrary, it's full of opportunism
and wreckles egotistical drivel, rather than strong, talented
artists with personal POWER (and the latter is frowned upon).

Your appeal to living is simply an appel to 'giving up' and 'mediocrity'
so far.

`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42

yes me too, but balinese, they do it for free:

- they don't ask contributions
- they are not chalenging money and raising money
- they don't make survey to know if they should ask or not to their public
to pay fee !


you can see them in ubud temple every night at 6.00 pm for free

I invite mark Tribe to travel in Asia, may be he will understand something
!!!!

be sure rhizome will never see again my visa card number


Valery Grancher




> At 3:37 PM -0500 11/16/02, curt cloninger wrote:
>
> >"We have no art," say the Balinese: "we do everything as well as
possible."
>
> i love this line.
>
> there is a difference between (living) art and (the business of) ART.
> my ponderings certainly have more to do with the last definition.
> thanks to (the business of) ART, i'd rather call art something else.
> i'd rather call it living as well as possible –certainly in the
> Balinese sense.
>
>
> best,
> liza
> + dancing days are here again as the summer evenings grow
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>
>

>From: Curt Cloninger <[email protected]>
It just means you'd make art whether
>you were paid and exhibited or not. It means you spend more time making
>cool shit and less time pimping your lame-ass contrived specialist
>professional shit.
>


Terrence writes;


Fragile Mind/Art

I quite agree that one needs to be a little realistic. If you busk and
studio party your latest works/ trials you get some great feedback.

Eventually, if your activity works for you and it/you get a steam on, then
you have a responsibility to get it out professionally to bring it to a
wider audience. The gate keeper gallery helps or not in this regard. I
wonder how many of us have a gate keeper in our head for the sake of
accepted forms? Do the forms get the life filtered out of them?

I saw and admired some small back lit cibacromes in 86, predecessors large
works of Jeff Wall, I remarked those cool little works could be big (
important) someday. I admired them as they seemed technically exciting.
Through the years they have become un-interactive or creatively filtered.
They seem like the big old academy paintings using kodak dyes instead of
pigment and vertuosity. What does that work mean in terms of social
feedback? Hugely expensive sort of inert back lit cibachromes with a crowd
of overdressed matrons staring blindly around at a public opening. It is
sort of a throw back to the old academy exhibitions without the power of
event. A one off celebration of a techinical form. The old art society
event was about delivering the latest symbolic image and sometimes shocking
or historically important messages. What has happened to art in the modern
age of communication? It seems mostly anacronistic and artifact like
regardless of form. It rarely has the impact of current events.

What eventually happens to any work if it does not get made into technical
wall paper or archived? How one keeps the work alive is perhaps to get it
into a side street of the main stream. Perhaps web art communication fills
that need regardless of how good it is. It could be banal observation or it
could be critically important. I think bridgeing mediums is an important
direction regardless. Having something powerfull/incitefull to say on
current events or at least reflect a condition that will make it bridgeable
to mainstream without it's form becoming absorbed completely and
forgottable. Like a continuous reportable social news item that is more
then a cultural news spot. A webart herald perhaps. A form for
attacking,challenging or integrating societies rather then just forgetably
entertaining like most censored movies and tv programs do or becoming a lame
academic archivable career form.



T.

_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?pagethatures/junkmail